Gearing up for impact: Embedding design science in innovation and entrepreneurship research
This special issue (SI) aims to advance design science (DS) in the field of technology-driven entrepreneurship and innovation research, by providing a forum for future-focused scholarship.
Guest editors:
Georges Romme, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands (a.g.l.romme@tue.nl) (corresponding guest editor)
Abayomi Baiyere, Queen’s University, Canada (a.baiyere@queensu.ca)
Dimo Dimov, University of Bath, UK (dpd24@bath.ac.uk)
Jan Holmström, Aalto University, Finland (jan.holmstrom@aalto.fi)
Jeanne Liedtka, University of Virginia, USA (liedtkaj@darden.virginia.edu)
Special issue information:
Motivation for the special issue
Innovation scholars are increasingly expected to directly contribute to developing novel technological solutions, for example those arising from recent developments in artificial intelligence, photonics, nanotechnology, Internet of Things, and digital twins—especially also to address various grand challenges our planet is facing. This requires innovation scholars to move beyond their usual ‘independent observer’ role.
In this respect, technological innovation and design are two sides of the same coin. New technologies are essentially created and crafted by human beings, whereas the notion of design captures the act of creating (e.g., technological) artifacts. This special issue (SI) therefore aims to advance design science (DS) in the field of technology-driven entrepreneurship and innovation research, by providing a forum for future-focused scholarship. In light of various grand challenges and the prominent role of technological innovation in tackling them, this is an opportune moment to mobilize a community of innovation and entrepreneurship scholars who want to gear up for a wider and more significant impact. More specifically, this SI seeks to advance and embed design science in technology-driven entrepreneurship and innovation research. As such, it responds to several trends and challenges.
First, DS has been arising in various disciplines such as organization studies (Romme, 2003), information systems (Baskerville et al., 2018; Hevner et al., 2004), operations management (Holmström et al., 2009), and entrepreneurship (Dimov et al., 2023). Simon’s (1969) monograph The Sciences of the Artificial is a major source of inspiration for the momentum around DS, bringing attention to the man-made nature of the world around us and the creative force of human intentionality. As a research methodology, it provides an engine for prospective future-oriented inquiry (Munoz and Dimov, 2023) at the interface of creative design and explanatory science (Sarasvathy et al., 2008).
Second, DS is a broadly applicable methodology because it can be applied to tangible artifacts such as hardware, software and written business plans (Gierlich-Joas et al., 2024), intangible artifacts like team collaboration and investor pitches, or combinations of the two, such as innovation ecosystems (Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020), capability assessment models (Baiyere et al., 2024), planning and executing small-scale pilots (Baldassarre et al., 2020), and incubation systems for creating new ventures (Berglund et al., 2020; Dimov, 2016). Moreover, DS draws on a diverse set of methods for collecting and analyzing data, which also enables its application to unique settings in which the number of observations and cases may (initially) be rather small.
Third, DS resonates well with the need to address various grand societal challenges that our planet is facing—such as the transformation of healthcare into a more resilient system and the systemic changes required in many industries to stabilize the climate (George et al., 2021; Romme and Holmström, 2023). To this end, DS combines a scientific mindset that seeks to deeply understand the causal mechanisms of ‘how things are’ with a creative design mindset that allows for exploring ‘how things could be’ (Simon, 1969). Individual scholars rarely excel in both scientific and design activities, because each requires fundamentally different competencies. DS is therefore especially useful for practitioner-academic teams that develop new solutions to major societal challenges (Baldassarre et al., 2020; Van Burg et al., 2008).
Finally, DS may help overcome the fragmented nature of innovation and entrepreneurship research (e.g., Matos et al., 2022; Saebi et al., 2019) arising from fundamentally different assumptions about the purpose and identity of research. This fragmentation is a major barrier to building a cumulative body of actionable knowledge. In this respect, some authors have claimed that a cumulative body of knowledge can be developed by conceiving of innovation and entrepreneurship research as a pragmatist DS or “science of the artificial” (Romme and Holmström, 2023; Romme and Reymen, 2018; Sarasvathy, 2003; Sarasvathy and Venkataraman, 2011), but the implications of this claim have not yet been fleshed out.
Potential topics and questions to be addressed
This SI addresses these challenges by positioning technological innovation and entrepreneurship research as a pragmatist and actionable DS, based on scholarship that is committed to conducting rigorous work as well as informing the design and development of solutions and practices that help solve major societal challenges. We invite conceptual, empirical and practical contributions addressing questions in the following areas; this list is not exhaustive:
- How can DS methodology serve to develop and commercialize technological solutions (as artifacts) drawing on, for instance, artificial intelligence (Mariani et al., 2023), Internet of Things (Baiyere et al., 2020; Clarysse et al., 2022), photonics (Holmes and Dulieu-Barton, 2023), or digital twins (Khajavi et al., 2019) to address grand challenges such as those in the area of poverty, climate change, and sustainable cities?
- The entrepreneurship literature has developed various frameworks and tools for identifying, creating and assessing entrepreneurial “opportunities” (e.g., DeTienne and Chandler, 2004; Talmar et al., 2020). Can innovation scholars develop similar approaches for designing opportunities, as creative products (Dimov, 2007), especially also in the context of addressing grand challenges?
- The discourse on design thinking (e.g., Carlgren et al., 2016; Liedtka, 2018; Liedtka et al., 2021) is to a large extent decoupled from its DS counterpart. How can the design thinking literature inform the (further) development of the creative dimension of DS methodology and its applications in the area of technology-driven innovation and entrepreneurship?
- Dimov et al. (2023) argued that a unique feature of DS is its focus on creating artifacts with a stance of world-to-theory alignment. Consequently, scholars seek to shape the world by using their theories as blueprints for new artifacts, that is, fulfill the human purposes and aspirations which are at the heart of their theorizing. What does this unique feature of DS imply for how entrepreneurship scholars (should) source and motivate their research questions, collect and analyze data, and so forth?
- The DS discourse tends to draw on a broad notion of “testing”, in terms of practical evaluations of whether solutions/artifacts work as well as more systematic and rigorous (e.g., quasi-experimental) data-driven assessments. How can this broader conceptualization of tests/testing better align how entrepreneurship and innovation scholars engage in validating theories to how entrepreneurs try out their initial value propositions or prototypes?
- DS scholars often develop and use design propositions (or design principles) to move from retrospective-explanatory research findings to prospective-actionable guidelines (Gregor et al., 2020; Gierlich-Joas et al., 2024; Romme, 2023). What is the epistemic status of such propositions? How can this type of proposition be effectively generalized to a broader class of problems?
- To what extent can the DS perspective be effectively used to facilitate the development of a coherent body of actionable knowledge for practitioners and scholars alike, also in view of the fragmented nature of innovation research (Matos et al., 2022; Saebi et al., 2019)? And how would such efforts build on, or differ from, other programmatic strategies such as those advocated in the literature on evidence-based management?
- The CAMO knowledge format has been advocated as a platform for accumulating DS knowledge (Romme and Dimov, 2021). What is the current stock of contexts (C), agencies (A), mechanisms (M), and outcomes (O) that can be synthesized from the literature on a specific topic in the technological innovation literature and thus serve as a foundation for future-focused theorizing?
- Some earlier work has argued that DS-based studies can also fuel theory development (Baskerville et al. 2018; Holmström et al., 2009; O’Shea et al., 2021; Romme and Reymen, 2018); can this claim be validated by, for example, applying DS to a major theoretical puzzle and/or a systematic review and synthesis of the literature?
If you consider submitting a manuscript to this SI, but are not familiar with Technovation, then please review the journal’s aim and scope as well as previous work published in it. The aim and scope of Technovation imply that, for instance, manuscripts exclusively focusing on technological developments (i.e., without addressing their societal impact, commercialization potential and/or the challenges they raise from an innovation management lens) are not a good fit.
Manuscript submission information:
In the period December 2024 to May 2025, we will run various online sessions for prospective authors, in which they can pitch an extended abstract and receive feedback from the guest editors on how their manuscripts can be further developed. If you want to exploit this opportunity, then please send an extended Abstract of your intended manuscript (of max. 2000 words) to the corresponding guest editor (a.g.l.romme@tue.nl) – at the latest on January 10, 2025.
The Technovation’s submission system will be open for submissions to our Special Issue from December 1, 2024. When submitting your manuscript to Editorial Manager, please select the article type “VSI: Gearing up for impact”. Please submit your manuscript before May 31, 2025. In your cover letter, please clearly indicate that your paper is submitted for this SI and why you believe it is a good fit with its call for papers.
All submissions deemed suitable to be sent for peer review will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. For authors of manuscripts receiving a minor or major revision decision (based on the first round of reviews), we’ll run an (online) developmental workshop. This workshop serves to provide additional developmental feedback and help the authors make choices about how to respond to the reviewers’ comments. Once your manuscript is accepted, it will go into production, and will be simultaneously published in the current regular issue and pulled into the online Special Issue. Articles from this Special Issue will appear in different regular issues of the journal, though they will be clearly marked and branded as Special Issue articles.
Please ensure you read the Guide for Authors before writing your manuscript. The Guide for Authors and link to submit your manuscript is available on the Journal’s homepage at: Technovation | Journal | ScienceDirect.com by Elsevier
We welcome informal enquiries about the SI (e.g., about proposed topics and their potential fit with the SI). Enquiries should be directed to: a.g.l.romme@tue.nl
The timeline of this special issue is as follows:
- Submission system opens: December 1, 2024
- Submission deadline: May 31, 2025
- First round review decision (at the latest): October 5, 2025*
- Revised manuscripts due (at the latest): March 15, 2026
- Second round review decision (at the latest): July 10, 2026
- Final revised manuscript due: October 15, 2026
- Expected publication of the SI: Winter 2025-26
References:
Baiyere, A., Topi, H., Venkatesh, V., Wyatt, J., Donnellan, B., 2020. The Internet of Things (IoT): A research agenda for information systems. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 47, 564-589.
Baiyere, A., Salmela, H., Nieminen, H., Kankainen, T., 2024. Assessing digital capabilities for digital transformation – The MIND framework. Information Systems Journal, forthcoming.
Baldassarre, B., Konietzko, J., Brown, P., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N., Karpen, I.O., Hultink, E.J., 2020. Addressing the design-implementation gap of sustainable business models by prototyping: A tool for planning and executing small-scale pilots. Journal of Cleaner Production 255, 120295.
Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., Gregor, S., Hevner, A., Matti, R., 2018. Design science research contributions: Finding a balance between artifact and theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 19(5), 358-376.
Berglund, H., Bousfiha, M., Mansoori, Y., 2020.. Opportunities as artifacts and entrepreneurship as design. Academy of Management Review 45(4), 825-846.
Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., Rauth, I., 2016. The challenges of using design thinking in industry – Experiences from five large firms. Creativity and Innovation Management 25, 344–362.
Clarysse, B., He, V.F., Tucci, C.L., 2022. How the Internet of Things reshapes the organization of innovation and entrepreneurship. Technovation 118, 102644.
DeTienne, D.R., Chandler, G.N., 2004. Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A pedagogical approach and empirical test. Academy of Management Learning & Education 3, 242–257.
Dimov, D., 2007. Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31(5), 713-731.
Dimov, D., 2016. Toward a design science of entrepreneurship. In: Models of start-up thinking and action: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical approaches, vol. 18, pp. 1-31. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Dimov, D., Maula, M., Romme, A.G.L., 2023. Crafting and assessing design science research for entrepreneurship (editorial). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 47(5), 1543-1567.
George, G., Merrill, R.K., Schillebeeckx, S.J.D., 2021. Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship: How digital innovations are helping tackle climate change and sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 45(5), 999–1027.
Gierlich-Joas, M., Baiyere, A., & Hess, T. (2024). Inverse transparency and the quest for empowerment through the design of digital workplace technologies. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, forthcoming. Preprint available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais_preprints/131/
Granstrand O., Holgersson, M., 2020. Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation 90–91, 102098.
Gregor, S., Kruse, L.C., Seidel, S. (2020). Research perspectives: The anatomy of a design principle. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 21(6), 1622-1652.
Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S., 2004. Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75-105.
Holmes, C., Dulieu-Barton, J., 2023. Flexible photonics in carbon and glass fiber reinforced polymers for new multifunctionality: Exploring the advances, challenges, and opportunities. Optical Materials: X 20, 100277.
Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M., Hameri, A.-P., 2009. Bridging practice and theory: A design science approach. Decision Sciences 40(1), 65-87.
Khajavi, S.H., Motlagh, N.H., Jaribion, A., Werner, L.C., Holmström, J., 2019. Digital twin: Vision, benefits, boundaries, and creation for buildings. IEEE Access 7, 147406-147419.
Liedtka, J., 2018. Why design thinking works. Harvard Business Review 96(5), 72-79.
Liedtka, J., Hold, K., Eldridge, J., 2021. Experiencing design: The innovator's journey. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mariani, M.M., Machado, I., Magrelli, V., Dwivedi, Y.K., 2023. Artificial intelligence in innovation research: A systematic review, conceptual framework, and future research directions. Technovation 122, 102623.
Matos, S., Viardot, E., Sovacool, B.K., Geels, F.W., Xiong, Y., 2022. Innovation and climate change: A review and introduction to the special issue. Technovation 117, 102612.
Munoz, P., Dimov, D., 2023. Facing the future through entrepreneurship theory: A prospective inquiry framework. Journal of Business Venturing 38(4), e106303.
O’Shea, G., Farny S., Hakala H., 2021. The buzz before business: A design science study of a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics 56(3), 1097–1120.
Romme, A.G.L., 2003. Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science 14(5), 558-573.
Romme, A.G.L., 2023. Design science as experimental methodology in innovation and entrepreneurship research: A primer. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation 7(2), 4-7.
Romme, A.G.L., Dimov, D., 2021. Mixing oil with water: Framing and theorizing in management research informed by design science. Designs 5, 13.
Romme, A.G.L., Holmström, J., 2023. From theories to tools: Calling for research on technological innovation informed by design science (editorial). Technovation 121, 102692.
Romme, A.G.L., Reymen, I.M.M.J., 2018. Entrepreneurship at the interface of design and science: Toward an inclusive framework. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 10, e00094.
Sarasvathy, S.D., 2003. Entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Journal of Economic Psychology 24, 203-220.
Sarasvathy, S.D., Dew, N., Read, S., Wiltbank, R., 2008. Designing organizations that design environments: Lessons from entrepreneurial expertise. Organization Studies 29(3), 331-350.
Sarasvathy, S.D., Venkataraman, S., 2011. Entrepreneurship as method: open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35, 113-135.
Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., Linder, S., 2019. Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management 45(1), 70–95.
Simon, H.A., 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial (1st edition; 3rd edition published in 1996). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Talmar, M., Walrave, B., Podoynitsyna, K.S., Holmström, J., Romme, A.G.L., 2020. Mapping, analyzing and designing innovation ecosystems: The Ecosystem Pie Model. Long Range Planning 53(4), 101850.
Van Burg, E., Romme, A.G.L., Gilsing, V.A., Reymen, I.M.M.J., 2008. Creating university spin‐offs: A science‐based design perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25(2), 114-128.
Wessel, L., Sundermeier, J., Rothe, H., Baiyere, A., Hanke, S., Rappert, F., Gersch, M., 2024. Designing as trading off: A practice-based view on smart service systems. European Journal of Information Systems, forthcoming. Preprint available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2024.2308541