Design Research In Information Systems Alan Hevner Samir Chatterjee

Design Research In Information Systems Alan
Hevner Samir Chatterjee download
https://ebookbell.com/product/design-research-in-information-
systems-alan-hevner-samir-chatterjee-59041794
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Design Research In Information Systems Theory And Practice Hevner
https://ebookbell.com/product/design-research-in-information-systems-
theory-and-practice-hevner-22035846
Design Science Research In Information Systems Advances In Theory And
Practice 7th International Conference Desrist 2012 Las Vegas Nv Usa
May 1415 2012 Proceedings 1st Edition Dmytro Babik
https://ebookbell.com/product/design-science-research-in-information-
systems-advances-in-theory-and-practice-7th-international-conference-
desrist-2012-las-vegas-nv-usa-may-1415-2012-proceedings-1st-edition-
dmytro-babik-4141450
Design Science Research For A New Society Society 50 18th
International Conference On Design Science Research In Information
Systems And Technology Desrist 2023 Pretoria South Africa May 31 June
2 2023 Proceedings Aurona Gerber
https://ebookbell.com/product/design-science-research-for-a-new-
society-society-50-18th-international-conference-on-design-science-
research-in-information-systems-and-technology-desrist-2023-pretoria-
south-africa-may-31-june-2-2023-proceedings-aurona-gerber-50290246
Designing For Digital Transformation Cocreating Services With Citizens
And Industry 15th International Conference On Design Science Research
In Information Systems And Technology Desrist 2020 Kristiansand Norway
December 24 2020 Proceedings 1st Ed Sara Hofmann
https://ebookbell.com/product/designing-for-digital-transformation-
cocreating-services-with-citizens-and-industry-15th-international-
conference-on-design-science-research-in-information-systems-and-
technology-desrist-2020-kristiansand-norway-
december-24-2020-proceedings-1st-ed-sara-hofmann-22498040

Handbook Of Research On Methodologies For Design And Production
Practices In Interior Architecture Ervin Garip
https://ebookbell.com/product/handbook-of-research-on-methodologies-
for-design-and-production-practices-in-interior-architecture-ervin-
garip-42692004
Cybernetic Architectures Informational Thinking And Digital Design
Routledge Research In Architecture 1st Edition Cifuentes Quin
https://ebookbell.com/product/cybernetic-architectures-informational-
thinking-and-digital-design-routledge-research-in-architecture-1st-
edition-cifuentes-quin-55756158
Researching Complex Information Infrastructures Design Characteristics
Of Ict Tools For Examining Modern Technology Usage 1st Edition Thomas
Ludwig Auth
https://ebookbell.com/product/researching-complex-information-
infrastructures-design-characteristics-of-ict-tools-for-examining-
modern-technology-usage-1st-edition-thomas-ludwig-auth-5885166
Design Research In Education A Practical Guide For Early Career
Researchers Arthur Bakker
https://ebookbell.com/product/design-research-in-education-a-
practical-guide-for-early-career-researchers-arthur-bakker-33977938
Design Research In Architecture An Overview 1st Edition Murray Fraser
https://ebookbell.com/product/design-research-in-architecture-an-
overview-1st-edition-murray-fraser-36896670

Integrated Series in Information Systems
Volume 22
Series Editors
Ramesh Sharda
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA
Stefan Voß
University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
For further volumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/6157

Alan Hevner · Samir Chatterjee
Design Research
in Information Systems
Theory and Practice
Forewords by Paul Gray and Carliss Y. Baldwin
123

Alan Hevner
University of South Florida
College of Business
4202 East Fowler Avenue
Tampa FL 33620
USA
ahevner@usf.edu
Samir Chatterjee
Claremont Graduate University
School of Information Systems and
Technology
130 East 9th Street
Claremont CA 91711
USA
samir.chatterjee@cgu.edu
ISSN 1571-0270
ISBN 978-1-4419-5652-1 e-ISBN 978-1-4419-5653-8
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8
Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2010924526
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written
permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York,
NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in
connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.
The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are
not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject
to proprietary rights.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Critical Praise for Design Science Research Book
Well designed systems enable productivity and successful adoption.
Poor design is the greatest barrier to both. I highly recommend this
book as a guideline to understanding where we have come from and
where we are headed in design science.
Kristin M. Tolle, Ph.D., Microsoft External
Research, Director, Health and Wellness Team
This enlightening book wonderfully captures the vibrant energy in
design science research that Hevner and Chatterjee have been able
to mobilize in the information systems design community in the past
five years through their work and the successful DESRIST annual
conferences. It brings together the contributions of some of the best
academic minds from Europe and North America in this growing
area, and is the only book of its kind. It is both a foundation and a
springboard for enabling the further advancement of design research
in information systems.
Omar A. El Sawy, Professor of Information Systems,
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern
California
This important book provides valuable guidance for design-oriented
IS researchers. With an increased demand for more relevant design-
oriented research on real-world business problems, this new book on
design research in IS has been waited for by many.
Prof. Dr. Robert Winter, Director, Institute
of Information Management, University of
St. Gallen, Switzerland

vi Critical Praise for Design Science Research Book
Creating and using information systems in business, organizational
and consumer settings are both essential and complicated. Most peo-
ple involved with these information systems initiatives deal with the
enormous breadth and depth of complexity by selectively focusing
on either the technology aspects, or the managerial, organizational
and people impacts. This book on Design Research in Information
Systems by Hevner and Chatterjee is an important effort to build
bridges across the technology perspective and the managerial and
behavioral perspectives of information systems. This important book
will help anyone appreciate how those who are building IT systems
can contribute to IS research.
Steven Miller, Professor of Information
Systems Practice, Dean, School of Information
Systems, Singapore Management University
This work is timely, crisp, and comprehensive. Hevner and Chatterjee
skillfully lead their readers through the central ideas of information
systems design science in a way that is not only authoritative and
methodical, but also clear and readable. It provides us with a work that
serves design researchers both as a complete tutorial and an excellent
desk reference.
Richard Baskerville, Professor of CIS
Department, J Mack Robinson College of
Business, Georgia State University

I dedicate this book to all my Georgia State
University design colleagues who started the
important dialogue when no one else understood
our research method. I also dedicate this book to
my family, my loving wife Madhumita, and my
son Mickey for their support. Finally my gratitude
is to my parents for always believing in me. Dad
and Mom, you are the greatest generation!
– Samir
I dedicate this book to my fabulous wife, Cindy.
– Alan

Foreword
It is 5 years since the publication of the seminal paper on “Design Science in
Information Systems Research” by Hevner, March, Park, and Ram in MIS Quarterly
and the initiation of the Information Technology and Systems department of the
Communications of AIS. These events in 2004 are markers in the move of design
science to the forefront of information systems research. A sufficient interval has
elapsed since then to allow assessment of from where the field has come and where
it should go.
Design science research and behavioral science research started as dual tracks
when IS was a young field. By the 1990s, the influx of behavioral scientists started
to dominate the number of design scientists and the field moved in that direction.
By the early 2000s, design people were having difficulty publishing in mainline IS
journals and in being tenured in many universities. Yes, an annual Workshop on
Information Technology and Systems (WITS) was established in 1991 in conjunc-
tion with the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) and grew each
year. But that was the extent of design science recognition. Fortunately, a revival
is underway. By 2009, when this foreword was written, the fourth DESRIST con-
ference has been held and plans are afoot for the 2010 meeting. Design scientists
regained respect and recognition in many venues where they previously had little.
Some behavioral scientists now understand, as this book points out (in Fig. 2.1),
that the two disciplinary approaches are tied to one another. Design scientists create
IS artifacts that create utility and behavioral scientists create IS theories based on
these research results that provide truth. We are not there yet in getting the rela-
tionships between the designers and behavioralists completely right. But we can be
confident that the link between design science and behavioral science will become
complimentary and ever stronger in the years ahead.
Design science is a relatively new field. It traces its roots to the 1969 book
“Science of the Artificial” by the late, great Herbert Simon. The artificial refers to
the idea that phenomena and entities can depend on choices by the designer rather
than being true only because they occur in nature. Much of the world of comput-
ing is the result of human design choices. Physical phenomena, such as the speed of
light or visual acuity, act as constraints on the design choice. Design science focuses
on the relevance of IT artifacts in applications. It involves problems characterized
by unstable requirements and constraints and complex interactions among problem
ix

x Foreword
components solved by using malleable processes and artifacts, creativity, and team-
work. That’s quite an order to fulfill for problems that are at heart wicked. Yet it is
being done and being done well.
Design science researchers work on understanding, explaining, and improving
information systems. They study artifacts such as algorithms, human/computer
interfaces, languages, and system design methodologies. Understanding leads to
knowledge for predicting how some aspect of a phenomenon behaves. Design uses
that knowledge plus innovation to create new improved artifacts that surpass what
was available previously. In practice, design itself involves considerations of the
internal, the external, and the interface between the internal and the external. That
is, design is the know–how for implementing an artifact that satisfies a set of func-
tional requirements. I could go on to explain design research at ever deeper levels.
But that would defeat the purpose of your reading this excellent book.
This volume is the first major book on design science I know of. It is authored
by two people, Alan Hevner and Samir Chatterjee, who are experienced leaders
and experts in the field. They organize and distill its current extent. You will find
the book is a much needed contribution for practitioners, students, and faculty in a
rapidly evolving area. I found that it broadened my understanding of design science
research and believe it will also broaden yours.
Paul Gray
Professor Emeritus, Information Science
Founding Editor, Communications of AIS
Irvine, CA

Foreword
In his pathbreaking book, The Sciences of the Artificial, Herbert Simon observed
that the natural sciences enjoyed a privileged position among academic disciplines.
By the opposite token, man-made things were not seen as worthy of true scien-
tific inquiry. Simon disagreed. He argued for the establishment of a set of sciences
focused on man-made things and unified by an overarching science of design.
One reason, Simon believed, the sciences of the artificial lagged behind the natu-
ral sciences was that interesting man-made systems quickly become very complex.
Science prizes simplicity and so is preferentially aimed at simple phenomena and
broad generalizations.
Researchers in information technology and information systems (IT/IS) of
necessity study complex, man-made systems. Moreover, as computers and com-
munication become cheaper, people are inevitably building new IT/IS systems that
push the limits of what is possible. Such systems confront us with “wicked prob-
lems” where social, technical, economic, and political constraints interact, and
solutions cannot be deduced from scientific principles alone. This is the world of
IT/IS research. To quote the fearful words of early scientific cartographers: “Here
be dragons.”
In domains characterized by complexity, natural science methods can only carry
us so far. Such methods leave out the important element of design: the construction
of new ways to solve a problem or address a need. Natural science methods take the
world as given and do not allow for novelty.
As researchers, how can we allow novel solutions to appear, and then study them
in a systematic way? How can we build up scientific knowledge about new designs,
in particular, what works and what fails and why? Without such knowledge, we will
not be able to understand the large-scale systems we are creating today. The wicked
problems will grow evermore wicked. The dragons will win.
Leaving hard-won knowledge about novel solutions scattered about, uncorrelated
and unanalyzed, will not make us masters of our own designs. Thus there is a need
to build knowledge about designs systematically, to test it rigorously, to share it
openly, and to pass it on. Only in this way can we take advantage of what Karl
Popper called the “ratchet” of the scientific method: the iterative process by which
erroneous conjectures are eliminated through a process of hypothesis formulation,
testing and reformulation. (Simon called this the “generate-test cycle,” and placed it
xi

xii Foreword
at the center of his science of design.) It is through this scientific method of learning,
Popper argued, that knowledge becomes cumulative. Designs get better. Progress is
real.
As Newell and Simon said, every artifact asks a question of the world. Put another
way, every new design embodies a set of hypotheses about how the world works.
The artifact based on the design tests those hypotheses, confirming some and con-
tradicting others. How can we leverage this innate property of artifacts and designs
to build up our stores of scientific knowledge?
Hevner and Chatterjee and the other contributors to this volume explain in a
practical and systematic way how to do this. They provide a roadmap that will allow
you to do first-rate design science research. They explain how to pose good research
questions, how to frame your questions in relation to prior work, and how and why
you must rigorously evaluate and report your results. They do not tell you how to
design, but they will help you to situate your designs in the broader discipline of
design science.
Designing will never be made entirely systematic, but the knowledge gleaned in
the process can be systematized and tested until it reaches the standard of science.
This book explains how. By following its precepts, the knowledge gained from your
own design experience can become part of the great body of scientific knowledge
that enriches us all.
Carliss Y. Baldwin
Harvard Business School
Baker Library 355
Boston, Massachusetts

Preface
“The proper study of mankind is the science of design.”
Herbert Simon
“Engineering, medicine, business, architecture and painting
are concerned not with the necessary but with the contin-
gent – not with how things are but with how they might be –
in short, with design.”
Herbert Simon
Purpose and Motivation of This Book
The creative human activity of design changes the world in which we live for the bet-
ter. As academic researchers in the field of information systems (IS), the co-authors
have observed, studied, and taught design in the development of software-intensive
systems for business. We have experienced the difficulties and wicked nature of
designing useful systems. More importantly, we have faced classrooms of students
with the challenges of how teach the underlying theories and everyday practices
of software system design. These experiences and challenges have motivated us to
perform research in the science of design, or design science research (DSR), and to
write this book.
We believe that the study of information systems design, both its theory and prac-
tice, has become an essential part of the education of IS students and professionals.
More and more IS graduate and doctoral programs are beginning to offer graduate-
level seminars on design science research. The purpose of this book is to fill a void:
the lack of a good reference book on design science research. Most current semi-
nars study a collection of research papers from many sources. Often, these papers
are written with differing terminology and research perspectives leading to confu-
sion and misunderstandings for students. Here we provide a consistent approach for
performing and understanding design science research while maintaining a diversity
of opinions from many thought leaders in the IS design community.
Having worked in the information technology and software design fields as aca-
demics and industry consultants, the authors of this book have written from their
xiii

xiv Preface
extensive experience as educators of design science research. Many chapters of this
book are based on a series of seminars that Dr. Chatterjee has taught at Claremont
Graduate University. Dr. Hevner’s seminal 2004 article in Management Information
Systems Quarterly journal has had huge impact in the IS field. (Appendix A is a re-
print of the Hevner et al. 2004 article in MISQ.) It has raised consciousness toward
design science as a rigorous and relevant research paradigm and his evangelistic
efforts to promote DSR throughout the world has resulted in a heightened aware-
ness of the urgent need for good design research to improve business processes and
systems.
In 2006, Drs. Chatterjee and Hevner founded the Design Science Research in
Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST) conference which has become a
platform for all leading design IS researchers to present their work and a forum to
debate the important issues facing the community. We have selected a handful of the
best papers that have appeared in this conference over the past 4 years to be included
as chapters of the book. In Appendix B, we have provided a list of exemplar research
papers in design science as an aid to students for further reading.
It has been our goal to make this book easy-to-read, easy-to-understand, and
easy-to-apply. From frameworks to theory to application design, this book provides
a comprehensive coverage of the most salient design science research knowledge
that is available at the time of this book’s publication.
Intended Audience
The material is suitable for graduate courses in information systems, computer sci-
ence, software engineering, engineering design, and other design-oriented fields.
The book is intended to be used as a core text or reference book for doctoral semi-
nars in design science research. The book does not require an extensive background
in design and can be appreciated by any practitioner as well who is working in
the field of information systems and technology design. IS faculty and industrial
researchers who want to further develop their knowledge and skills in the design
science research methodology will find it valuable. Each chapter is self-contained
with references.
Alan Hevner Samir Chatterjee
Tampa, Florida Claremont, California

Acknowledgments
Writing a book is no small task. It is with great pleasure that we acknowledge the
efforts of many people who have contributed either directly or indirectly to the
development of this book. The ideas presented in this book have been shaped and
influenced by the students who have taken the design science research seminars at
Claremont and all those doctoral students that we have graduated. In particular we
would like to thank the contributors who despite busy schedules have worked hard
to write chapters in this book:
Juhani Iivari
Monica Chiarini Tremblay
Donald Berndt
Robert Judge
Matti Rossi
Maung Sein
Sandeep Purao
Salvatore T. March
Timothy J. Vogus
Sven A. Carlsson
Kevin Williams
We acknowledge the love and support of our families toward this endeavor.
Without their sacrifices, this book would not have been possible.
Finally we are grateful to the Springer publishing team for their eager assistance
and expert advice. In particular we thank Ramesh Sharda who encouraged us to
write this book and the Springer editorial team of Gary Folven, Carolyn Ford, and
Neil Levine.
We express our gratitude to Leah Paul, of Integra Software Services and Christine
Ricketts of Springer for carefully editing our entire textbook for any errors or
incorrect facts.
xv

Contents
1 Introduction to Design Science Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 What Is Design? – Different Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 What Is Research? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Is Design a Science? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 What Is Design Science Research? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Placing DSR in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.6 The Spectrum of IS DSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.7 Difference Between Routine Design Practice and DSR . . . . 7
1.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Design Science Research in Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Information Systems Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Summary of Hevner, March, Park, and Ram 2004 MISQ Paper 10
2.3 Impacts of 2004 MISQ Paper on Design Science Research . . 13
2.4 Extending the Reach of Design Science Research in IS . . . . 14
2.4.1 Design Science Research vs. Professional Design . 15
2.4.2 Design as Research vs. Researching Design . . . . 15
2.4.3 Design Science Research Cycles . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.4 A Checklist for Design Science Research . . . . . 19
2.4.5 Publication of Design Science Research . . . . . . 19
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3 Design Science Research Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1 Understanding the Natural and Artificial Worlds . . . . . . . . 23
3.2 Toward a Theory of Complex Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Systems Development in Information Systems Research . . . . 25
3.4 The General Design Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.5 Action Research Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.6 The Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM) . . . . . 28
3.7 Concluding Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
xvii

xviii Contents
4 On Design Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1 What Is Theory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 Cycle of Theory Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2.1 Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2.2 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.2.3 Defining Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.2.4 Anomaly – Improving Descriptive Theory . . . . . 36
4.3 Transition to Normative Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.4 Taxonomy of Theory Types in Information Systems . . . . . . 37
4.5 Is Design Theory Possible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.5.1 Information Systems Design Theory . . . . . . . . 39
4.5.2 Hooker’s View on Design Theory . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.5.3 Toward the Anatomy of an IS Design Theory . . . 41
4.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5 Twelve Theses on Design Science Research in Information
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2 Thesis 1: IS Is an Applied or Practical Discipline . . . . . . . 44
5.3 Thesis 2: Prescriptive Research Is an Essential Part
of IS as an Applied or Practical Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.4 Thesis 3: The Design Science Activity of Building IT
Artifacts Is an Important Part of Prescriptive Research
in Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.5 Thesis 4: The Primary Interest of IS Lies in IT
Applications, and Therefore IS as a Design Science
Should Be Based on a Sound Ontology of IT Artifacts
and Especially of IT Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.6 Thesis 5: IS as a Design Science Builds IT Meta-
artifacts That Support the Development of Concrete IT
Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.7 Thesis 6: Prescriptive Knowledge of IT Artifacts
Forms a Knowledge Area of Its Own and Cannot Be
Reduced to the Descriptive Knowledge of Theories
and Empirical Regularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.8 Thesis 7: The Resulting IT Meta-artifacts Essentially
Entail Design Product and Design Process Knowledge . . . . . 51
5.9 Thesis 8: The Term “Design Theory” Should Be Used
Only When It Is Based on a Sound Kernel Theory . . . . . . . 52
5.10 Thesis 9: Constructive Research Methods Should
Make the Process of Building IT Meta-artifacts
Disciplined, Rigorous, and Transparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Contents xix
5.11 Thesis 10: Explication of the Practical Problems
to Be Solved, the Existing Artifacts to Be Improved,
the Analogies and Metaphors to Be Used, and/or the
Kernel Theories to Be Applied Is Significant in Making
the Building Process Disciplined, Rigorous, and Transparent . 55
5.12 Thesis 11: IS as a Design Science Cannot Be Value-
Free, but It May Reflect Means-End, Interpretive,
or Critical Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.13 Thesis 12: The Values of Design Science Research
Should Be Made as Explicit as Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.14 Conclusions and Final Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6 A Science of Design for Software-Intensive Systems . . . . . . . . . 63
6.1 Science of Design Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.2 Software-Intensive Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.3 Science of Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.4 Categories of Software-Intensive Systems Principles . . . . . . 68
6.5 A Proposed Research Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.6 SIS Scientific Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.6.1 Software Design Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.6.2 Dynamic System Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.6.3 Socio-economic Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.6.4 Domain Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.7 SIS Engineering Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.8 SIS Research Project Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.9 Intellectual Drivers for Science of Design in SIS Research . . 75
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7 People and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
7.1 Designing for Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.2 Practice of Ethnography in Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
7.3 Reflection in Action (Schon’s View) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
7.4 Designing for Scale – Google and People . . . . . . . . . . . 83
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
8 Software Design: Past and Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
8.1 A Software Design Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
8.2 Software Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
8.2.1 Manual Business Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
8.2.2 Mainframe Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
8.2.3 Online, Real-Time Architectures . . . . . . . . . . 89
8.2.4 Distributed, Client–Server Architectures . . . . . . 90
8.2.5 Component-Based Architectures . . . . . . . . . . 91
8.2.6 Service-Oriented Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . 92
8.3 Algorithmic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

xx Contents
8.3.1 Early Program Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
8.3.2 Structured Program Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
8.3.3 Recent Algorithm Design Paradigms . . . . . . . . 94
8.3.4 Widely Used Programming Languages . . . . . . . 94
8.4 Data Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
8.4.1 Punched Card Data Management . . . . . . . . . . 95
8.4.2 Computerized File Management . . . . . . . . . . 95
8.4.3 Online Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
8.4.4 Relational Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
8.4.5 Current Trends in Data Management . . . . . . . . 97
8.5 Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) Design . . . . . . . . . . 98
8.5.1 Early Computer Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
8.5.2 Text-Based Command Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . 98
8.5.3 The WIMP Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
8.5.4 Current Trends in HCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
8.6 Software Development Processes and Methods . . . . . . . . 100
8.6.1 Software Development Processes . . . . . . . . . . 101
8.6.2 Early Development Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
8.6.3 Object-Oriented Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
8.6.4 Formal Development Methods . . . . . . . . . . . 103
8.6.5 Component-Based Development (CBD) Methods . 103
8.6.6 Agile Development Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
8.6.7 Controlled-Flexible Development Methods . . . . . 104
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
9 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
9.1 What Is Evaluation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
9.2 Why Do We Perform Evaluations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
9.3 Differing Perspectives of Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
9.4 Basic Structure of Evaluation Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
9.5 The Art of Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
9.6 Avoiding Common Mistakes in Performance Evaluation . . . . 115
9.7 Conducting an Objectivist Comparative Study – A
Brief Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
9.8 Threats to Inference and Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
9.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
10 The Use of Focus Groups in Design Science Research . . . . . . . . 121
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
10.2 Research Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
10.3 Adapting Focus Groups to Design Research . . . . . . . . . . 124
10.3.1 Formulate Research Question or Problem . . . . . 124
10.3.2 Identify Sample Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
10.3.3 Number of Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
10.3.4 Number of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Contents xxi
10.3.5 Participant Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
10.3.6 Identify Moderator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
10.3.7 Develop and Pre-test a Questioning Route . . . . . 128
10.3.8 Conduct the Focus Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
10.3.9 Analyze and Interpret Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
10.3.10 Report Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
10.4 A Design Research Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
10.4.1 Research Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
10.4.2 Data Quality Metrics Description . . . . . . . . . . 131
10.4.3 Design Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
10.4.4 Identify Sample Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
10.4.5 Identify Moderator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
10.4.6 Develop a Questioning Route . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
10.4.7 Recruit Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
10.4.8 Conduct Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
10.4.9 Analyze and Interpret the Data . . . . . . . . . . . 137
10.4.10 Report Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
10.5 Limitations on the Use of Focus Groups for Design Research . 139
10.6 Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
11 Design and Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
11.1 Creativity – What Is It? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
11.2 Group Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
11.3 Conceptual Blockbusting Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
11.4 Experiential Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
11.5 Creativity, Design, and IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
11.6 Creativity and Design in the Age of Virtual Worlds . . . . . . 152
11.7 Designing Virtual Worlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
11.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
12 A Design Language for Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) . 157
12.1 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
12.2 Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
12.3 Artifact Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
12.4 Knowledge Packet Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
12.5 Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
12.6 Value Accelerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
12.7 Receiver of Good Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
12.8 Evaluation Methodology: SME Model Instantiation
Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
12.9 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
12.10 Contribution to Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
12.11 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

xxii Contents
13 On Integrating Action Research and Design Research . . . . . . . 179
13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
13.2 The Research Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
13.2.1 Design Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
13.2.2 Action Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
13.3 Cross-Application of Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
13.3.1 Applying Action Research Criteria
to a Design Research Exemplar . . . . . . . . . . . 183
13.3.2 Applying Design Research Criteria
to an Action Research Exemplar . . . . . . . . . . 187
13.4 A Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
13.4.1 Adding “Reflection” to Augment Learning
from Design Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
13.4.2 Concretizing Learning from Action
Research by Adding “Build” . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
13.4.3 Envisioning an Integrated Research Process . . . . 191
13.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
14 Design Science in the Management Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
14.2 Design Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
14.3 Design Science Research in Organizational Studies . . . . . . 200
14.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
15 Design Science Research in Information Systems: A Critical
Realist Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
15.2 Why an Alternative Information Systems Design
Science Research Approach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
15.3 Critical Realism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
15.4 A Critical Realist Approach for IS Design Science Research . 217
15.4.1 For Whom Should IS Design Science
Research Produce Knowledge? . . . . . . . . . . . 217
15.4.2 What Types of IS Design Knowledge
Should IS Design Research Produce? . . . . . . . . 218
15.4.3 Developing IS Design Knowledge . . . . . . . . . 221
15.4.4 Examples of How to Develop IS Design
Theories and Design Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . 224
15.4.5 Design Theory #1: Developing a Design
Theory for Turning KMS Use into Profit . . . . . . 224
Theory for Successful Use of e-Learning . . . . . . 226

Contents xxiii
Theory on How to Improve the Capability
of IS Integration in M&As . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
15.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
16 Design of Emerging Digital Services: A Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . 235
16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
16.2 Service Versus Digital Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
16.3 Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
16.4 Why Taxonomy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
16.5 Grounding of the Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
16.6 Fundamental Design Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
16.6.1 Service Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
16.6.2 Service Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
16.6.3 Malleability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
16.6.4 Pricing and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
16.7 Fundamental Service Provider Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 247
16.7.1 Business Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
16.7.2 Technological Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
16.7.3 Interaction Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
16.8 Summary of the Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
16.9 Evaluation of the Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
16.9.1 Salesforce.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
16.9.2 Myspace.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
16.9.3 Itunes.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
16.10 Future Research Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
17 Disseminating Design Science Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
17.1 Academic Route – Conference and Journal Papers . . . . . . . 255
17.2 Funding to Support Your Design Research . . . . . . . . . . . 257
17.3 Commercializing Your Ideas via Start-Ups . . . . . . . . . . . 258
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
18 Design Science Research: Looking to the Future . . . . . . . . . . . 261
18.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
18.2 Trend 1: Growing Number of IS Scholars Will Use
Design as a Research Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
18.3 Trend 2: Growing Number of Scholars Will Research Design . 262
18.4 Trend 3: A Small but Steady Number of Scholars
Will Study Design Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
18.5 Trend 4: An Uptake Is Expected in These Three IT
Application Area Thereby Creating a Surge in the
Need for Design Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
18.5.1 Health Care and IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

xxiv Contents
18.5.2 Green Technology and Green IT . . . . . . . . . . 264
18.5.3 Green Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
18.5.4 Collaboration, Web 2.0, and Social Technologies . 267
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Appendix A: Hevner, March, Park, and Ram 2004 MISQ Reprint . . . 269
Appendix B: Exemplar Publications of Design Science Research
in Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Contributors
Donald J. Berndt College of Business at the University of South Florida, Tampa,
FL, USA, dberndt@coba.usf.edu
Sven A. Carlsson School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Lund,
Sweden, sven_carlsson@hermes.ics.lu.se
Juhani Iivari University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, juhani.iivari@oulu.fi
Robert Judge, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA,
rjudge@mail.sdsu.edu
Salvatore T. March Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt
University , Nashville, TN, USA sal.march@owen.vanderbilt.edu
Sandeep Purao Information Sciences and Technology at Penn State ,
McKeesport, PA, USA spurao@ist.psu.edu
Matti Rossi Helsinki School of Economics, Helssinki, Finland, matti.rossi@iki.fi
Maung K. Sein University of Agder, Grimstad, Norway, maung.k.sein@uia.no
Monica Chiarini Tremblay Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA,
mtremblay68@gmail.com
Timothy J. Vogus Vanderbilt Owen Graduate School of Management, Nashville,
TN, USA, timothy.vogus@owen.vanderbilt.edu
Kevin Williams School of Information Systems and Technology, Claremont
Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA kevin.williams@cgu.edu
xxv

About the Authors
Alan Hevner (ahevner@usf.edu) is an eminent
scholar and professor in the Information Systems
and Decision Sciences Department in the College
of Business at the University of South Florida.
He holds the Citigroup/Hidden River Chair of dis-
tributed technology. Dr. Hevner’s areas of research
expertise include information systems develop-
ment, software engineering, distributed database
systems, health-care information systems and
service-oriented systems. He has published more
than 150 research papers on these topics and has
consulted for several Fortune 500 companies. Dr. Hevner has a Ph.D. in computer
science from Purdue University. He has held faculty positions at the University of
Maryland and the University of Minnesota. Dr. Hevner is a member of ACM, IEEE,
AIS, and INFORMS. He recently completed an assignment as a program manager
in the Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate at the U.S.
National Science Foundation.
Samir Chatterjee (samir.chatterjee@cgu.edu) is a
professor in the School of Information Systems &
Technology and Founding Director of the Network
Convergence Laboratory at Claremont Graduate
University, California. Prior to that, he taught
at the CIS Department of J Mack Robinson
College of Business, Georgia State University, in
Atlanta. He holds a B.E (Hons.) in Electronics &
Telecommunications Engineering from Jadavpur
University, India, and an M.S and Ph.D. from the
School of Computer Science, University of Central
xxvii

xxviii About the Authors
Florida. He is widely recognized as an expert in the areas of next-generation net-
working, voice and video over IP, and e-health technologies. His current research
includes the design and implementation of persuasive technologies that can alter
human behavior, telemedicine systems, stress management software, and context-
aware intervention technologies for managing obesity.
He has published over 100 articles in refereed conferences and scholarly jour-
nals including IEEE Network, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
Communications of the ACM, Journal of MIS, Computer Networks, International
Journal of Healthcare Technology & Management, Telemedicine & e-Health
Journal, Information Systems Frontiers, JMIS, Information Systems, Computer
Communication, IEEE IT Professional, JAMIA, ACM CCR, Communications of
AIS, Journal of Internet Technology, etc. He is principal investigator on several
NSF grants and has received funding from private corporations such as BellSouth,
Northrop Grumman, and Hitachi for his research. He is the founding program
chair for the International Conference on Design Science Research in IS&T
(DESRIST 2006, 2007). He is the program chair for persuasive 2009 conference. Dr.
Chatterjee is a senior IEEE member and member of ACM, AIS, and AMIA. He has
been an entrepreneur and successfully co-founded a start-up company VoiceCore
Technologies Inc. in 2000.

Chapter 1
Introduction to Design Science Research
“In the same way that industrial designers have shaped our
everyday life through objects that they design for our offices and
for our homes, software interaction design is shaping our life
with interactive technologies – computers, telecommunications,
mobile phones and virtual worlds. If I were to sum up this in one
sentence, I would say that it’s about shaping our everyday life
through digital artifacts – for work, for play, and for
entertainment.”
–Gillian Crampton Smith (Moggridge 2007)
Since the dawn of the digital revolution, information technologies have changed
the way we live, work, play, and entertain. Designers of IT-based digital technol-
ogy products play a critical role in ensuring that their designed artifacts are not
just beautiful but provide value to their users. Users are increasingly interacting
with a digital world. Designing interactions in this new world is a challenging task.
The experiences we have when we browse the web, or visit amazon.com, sell/buy
stuff on eBay or play amusing games on our mobile cell phones do have a tremen-
dous impact on how we live our lives. Designing information systems is even more
challenging.
1.1 What Is Design? – Different Perspectives
You know when you see a good design but it is often hard to define it. Charles
Eames offered the following: “A plan for arranging elements in such a way as to best
accomplish a particular purpose.” Design is the instructions based on knowledge
that turns things into value that people use. It embodies the instruction for making
the things. However, design is not the thing. For example, we can say that source
code is design while compiled code is the thing itself.
A number of disciplines have all made design a central element in what they
do. This includes architecture, engineering, computer science, software engineering,
1
A. Hevner, S. Chatterjee, Design Research in Information Systems, Integrated Series
in Information Systems 22, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8_1,
C
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

2 1 Introduction to Design Science Research
media, and art design and information systems. They all have slightly different views
on what they call design.
Engineering design is the systematic intelligent generation and evaluation of
specifications for artifacts whose form and function achieve stated objectives and
satisfy specified constraints (Dym and Little 2000).
Software (engineering) design is a “thing” as well as a “process” which is con-
scious, keeps human concerns in the center, is a conversation with materials, is
creative, has social consequences, and is a social activity (Winograd 1996).
When it comes to design, we are best familiar with beautiful architectures that
capture our imagination. Mitch Kapor actually wrote that good software should be
like well-designed buildings. They exhibit three characteristics:
• Firmness: A program should not have any bugs that inhibit its function.
• Commodity: A program should be suitable for the purposes for which it was
intended.
• Delight: The experience of using the program should be a pleasurable one.
Our interest in this book is to understand design and its role in both the academic
discipline and practice we call the information systems. Design in information sys-
tems is both an iterative process (set of activities) and a resulting product (artifact) –
a verb and a noun (Walls et al. 1992). Very simply stated, design in information
systems deals with building software artifacts which solve a human problem. The
designed artifact must be evaluated to show that not only does it solve the problem
but also does it in an efficient manner by providing utility to its user. But how does
one conduct design research? Is design a research methodology? Is design even a
scientific paradigm?
1.2 What Is Research?
To explain fully what is research or how to do research is beyond the scope of this
book. However, the thesis we are explaining is a type of research method we call
design science research. Hence in that context, it is important to know a little bit
about research.
Research can be very generally defined as an activity that contributes to the
understanding of a phenomenon (Kuhn 1970; Lakatos 1978). Phenomenon is typ-
ically a set of behaviors of some entity that is found interesting by the researcher
or by a group – a research community. Understanding is knowledge that allows
prediction of the behavior of some aspects of the phenomenon. Everywhere, our
knowledge is incomplete and problems are waiting to be solved. We address the
void in our knowledge and those unresolved problems by asking relevant questions
and seeking answers to them. The role of research is to provide a method for obtain-
ing those answers by inquiringly studying the evidence within the parameters of the
scientific method.

1.3 Is Design a Science? 3
Research is a process through which we attempt to achieve systematically and
with the support of data the answer to a question, the resolution of a problem, or
a greater understanding of a phenomenon. This process, frequently called research
methodology, has eight distinct characteristics:
• Research originates with a question or problem
• Research requires a clear articulation of a goal
• Research follows a specific plan of procedure
• Research usually divides the principal problem into more manageable
subproblems
• Research is guided by the specific research problem, question, or hypothesis
• Research accepts certain critical assumptions
• Research requires collection and interpretation of data or creation of artifacts
• Research is by its nature cyclical, iterative, or more exactly helical
1.3 Is Design a Science?
There is considerable debate in the community whether design is a science or a
practice. What constitutes a science is a big question that is perhaps outside the
scope of this book. But we would like to understand the elements of how science
is structured? Vannevar Bush (1945) had said that science has two end points on
a scale: Basic fundamental research (typically funded by federal agencies such as
NSF) and applied research (typically funded by corporations). Any science develops
and evolves over time and proceeds through various stages. A useful tool that is often
used to analyze the development of science is the Stokes matrix (see Fig. 1.1).
Science can be structured in two axes. On the vertical axis, it represents how
fundamental the knowledge is. On the horizontal axis, it represents how useful that
Natural history
(bird watching)
Edisonian
experiments
Neil Bohr
principles
Pasteur’s
science
Fundamental
Useful
yes
no
low high
Fig. 1.1 The Stokes matrix
quadrants

knowledge is to solve everyday problems. Most science begins at the lower left
quadrant referred to as “natural history.” This is similar to bird watching, where
scientists observe what is happening. Then they capture that basic observation and
codify it as knowledge. We do not understand fully why things behave the way
they do but we can describe what we see. This is an important quadrant and with
respect to design, we have a lot of captured tacit and codified knowledge of design,
design process, and product outputs. But note that this knowledge is rather of low
usefulness.
The lower right corner represents the “Edisonian experiments” quadrant where
the knowledge is not that fundamental but experiments are proving to be quite use-
ful. Hands-on experiments and playing with design are critical in this phase. It is
more useful when you actually build designs. The “Neil’s Bohr” quadrant on the
upper left corner is when science becomes more fundamental but its usefulness is
still restricted. We think that the present understanding of design science research
is currently located at this quadrant (in the present moment). Lots of the pioneer-
ing work done by Herb Simon, Chris Alexander, Fred Brooks, David Parnas, and
others belong here. This is fundamental knowledge that designers can put to use.
The upper right quadrant termed “Pasteur’s quadrant” is where we would like to go:
fundamental design knowledge that is extremely useful. That is where a science of
design will emerge. Carliss Baldwin at a recent keynote talk at an NSF workshop
summarized it well:
There are theories and design principles in individual design domains such as architec-
ture, engineering design, and software engineering. But a science of design will not emerge
from core domains. It has to come from an overarching disciplinary scientific field. The
science of design and its theories should be generalizable and applicable across a wide vari-
ety of domains and specialties (NSF 2007, PI Workshop on Science of Design, Arlington,
Virginia).
In the context of the present discussions, one can ponder on what is good sci-
ence? It is widely accepted that the basic goal of good science is to develop a theory,
paradigm, or model that provides a basis for research to understand the phenomenon
being studied. This model is useful only in so far as it helps to explain the obser-
vations. To this end, science develops by a formal procedure, usually termed “the
scientific method.”
In a brilliant essay, Kirschenmann (2002) laments on how traditional scientific
economy of prestige and the generous funding that follows it has distorted the entire
“scientific process” which was once a “purely academic pursuit” but has now “been
commercialized to an astonishing degree by researchers themselves.” How has this
happened? Evelyn Fox Keller posits “Scientists, she says, “are language-speaking
actors” and “the words they use play a crucial role in motivating them to act, in
directing their attention, in framing their questions, and in guiding their experimen-
tal efforts.” Today we are in a world where we do not see science that questions
established dogmas but rather science that is directed by commercial and monetary
interests.

1.5 Placing DSR in Context 5
1.4 What Is Design Science Research?
Based on the notions and discussions above, we can now define design science
research (DSR) as follows:
Design science research is a research paradigm in which a designer answers questions rel-
evant to human problems via the creation of innovative artifacts, thereby contributing new
knowledge to the body of scientific evidence. The designed artifacts are both useful and
fundamental in understanding that problem.
We hereby lay down the first principle of DSR:
The fundamental principle of design science research is that knowledge and understanding
of a design problem and its solution are acquired in the building and application of an
artifact.
1.5 Placing DSR in Context
Our community of practice is information technology and information systems.
Information is “data that has been processed into a form that is meaningful to the
recipient and is of real or perceived value in current or prospective actions or deci-
sions.” Technology has been defined as “practical implementations of intelligence.”
Technology is practical, or useful, rather than being an end in itself. It is embod-
ied, as in implementations or artifacts, rather than being solely conceptual (March
and Smith 1995; Hevner et al. 2004). Technology includes the many tools, tech-
niques, materials, and sources of power that humans have developed to achieve their
goals. Technologies are often developed in response to specific task requirements
using practical reasoning and experiential knowledge. IT then is technology used
to acquire and process information in support of human purposes. It is typically
instantiated as IT systems – complex organizations of hardware, software, proce-
dures, data, and people, developed to address tasks faced by individuals and groups,
typically within some organizational setting.
IS is a unique discipline concerned with how IT intersects with organizations and
how it is managed. IS research to date has produced knowledge by two complemen-
tary but distinct paradigms, behavioral sciences and design sciences (Hevner et al.
2004). Behavioral science which draws its origins from natural science paradigm
seeks to find the truth. It starts with a hypothesis, then researchers collect data, and
either prove or disprove the hypothesis. Eventually a theory develops. Design sci-
ence on the other hand is fundamentally a problem-solving paradigm whose end
goal is to produce an artifact which must be built and then evaluated. Working with
the technology and going through the process of construction and understanding the
salient issues with the artifact is central to this paradigm. Architects, engineers, and
computer scientists have always conducted such type of work. The knowledge gen-
erated by this research informs us how an artifact can be improved, is better than
existing solutions, and can more efficiently solve the problem being addressed. It

is important to note that artifacts are not exempt from theories. They rely on ker-
nel theories that are applied, tested, modified, and extended (Walls et al. 1992). But
there is considerable debate around the issue of whether there is a design theory or
whether a science of design is even possible (NSF 2003; Hooker 2004).
1.6 The Spectrum of IS DSR
In all the definitions above, one can note that design is often a complex process and
designing useful artifacts is hard due to the need for creative advances in domain
areas in which existing theory is often insufficient. For our discipline, we are con-
cerned with designing artifacts that use information technology (IT) and are applied
to organizations and society in general. As Lee (2001) points out the characteristic
that distinguishes IS from the other fields is as follows:
Research in the information systems field examines more than just the technological sys-
tem, or just the social system, or even the two side by side; in addition, it investigates the
phenomenon that emerges when the two interact.
The term artifact is used to describe something that is artificial, or constructed by
humans, as opposed to something that occurs naturally (Simon 1996). Such artifacts
must improve upon existing solutions to a problem or perhaps provide a first solution
to an important problem. IT artifacts, which are the end-goal of any design science
research project, are broadly defined as follows:
• Constructs (vocabulary and symbols)
• Models (abstractions and representations)
• Methods (algorithms and practices)
• Instantiations (implemented and prototype systems)
• Better design theories
In both Herbert Simon’s seminal work The Sciences of the Artificial (1996)
and Nigel Cross’ Developing a Discipline of Design/Science/Research (2001), we
clearly see the importance they place on doing (construction). Simon believed that
design is concerned with how things ought to be in order to attain goals (Gregor
and Jones 2007). He saw the design process as generally concerned with finding
a satisfactory design, rather than an optimum design. He believed “both the shape
of the design and the shape and organization of the design process are essential
components of a theory of design” (pp. 130–131). Cross on the other hand gives
less importance to theory but stresses on knowledge that is acquired through the
building process:
We must not forget that design knowledge resides in products themselves; in the forms and
materials and finishes which embody design attributes. Much everyday design work entails
the use of precedents or previous exemplars – not because of laziness by the designer but
because the exemplars actually contain knowledge of what the product should be (Cross
2001).

1.7 Difference Between Routine Design Practice and DSR 7
A research paradigm is the set of activities a research community considers
appropriate to the production of understanding (knowledge) in its research methods
or techniques. Historically, some communities have a nearly universal agreement on
the phenomenon of interest and the research methods for investigating it. They are
termed paradigmatic communities. There are other communities, however, where a
number of different methods are appropriate. These are termed multi-paradigmatic
communities. Information systems is an excellent example of a multi-paradigmatic
community (Vaishnavi and Kuechler 2007).
Figure 1.2 shows the balance in scope of focus for three related disciplines:
information systems (IS), software engineering (SE), and computer science (CS).
CS researchers are much closer to actual working code. SE researchers are deal-
ing with software at production and operational levels and they do have to face
some organizational issues. IS researchers are closer to deployment of information
technology in an organization. Hence besides working code, they face management
and organizational challenges as well. The scope of focus also dictates the gene-
sis of problems. This organizational focus bears on the specifications and eventual
evaluation conducted. This would be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
IS
SE
CS
organizations code
Fig. 1.2 Discipline balance
and scope of work scale
1.7 Difference Between Routine Design Practice and DSR
One source of confusion to novice design science researchers is to understand the
subtle difference between conducting DSR versus practicing routine design. Is the
iPod a good design or is it an example of design science research? If you break open
the iPod and lay out its fundamental components, you will typically find memory,
hard disk, CPU, some code, some audio input/output interfaces, and a song selec-
tion dial. None of these are new. They have existed for quite some time. But what
the iPod did is to integrate them in a rather innovative way and produce an artifact
that has tremendous value to music listeners. Is any new knowledge created in the
process? Perhaps yes or perhaps no. It depends on whether the designers at Apple
had actually invented something new with the compact design, the easy-to-use dial
interface, or produced better sound clarity. They may have. In that case, if the team
documents that their new “artifact” is better, faster, or more optimal through rigor-
ous evaluation methods and comparison with similar artifacts, then new knowledge
is indeed created and this would be considered DSR. But if no new knowledge is cre-
ated, then this would be considered applying best practices and conducting routine
design.

1.8 Conclusions
The information systems field has been energized by a flurry of recent activity
that centers on the use of design research as an important research paradigm. We
acknowledge that design research has broader appeal and knowledge has been cre-
ated by several design fields. However, our community and the context of this book
are information systems. Our goal is partly to legitimize design science as a valid
method of doing research in the field. The other goal is to learn from related design
disciplines and adopt successful design principles that can be appropriated for infor-
mation systems research. In this book, we will explore the origins of DSR, its
history, foundation, techniques, exemplars, and its future. Various techniques and
methods will be discussed. Understanding the principles, theories, and foundations
is the first step to ensure that you know when you are doing great design science
research work.
References
Bush, V. (1945) Science: The Endless Frontier. A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, July
1945. Accessed at URL http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm
Cross, N. (2001) Design/science/research: developing a discipline, in Fifth Asian Design
Conference: International Symposium of Design Science, Su Jeong Dang Printing Company,
Seoul Korea.
Dym, C. L. and P. Little (2000) Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction, J. Wiley
Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Gregor, S. and D. Jones (2007) The anatomy of a design theory, Journal of AIS 8 (5), pp. 312–335.
Hevner, A., S. March, J. Park, and S. Ram (2004) Design science in information systems research.
MIS Quarterly 28 (1), pp. 75–105.
Hooker, J. N. (2004) Is design theory possible? Journal of Information Technology Theory and
Application 6 (2), pp. 73–83.
Kirschenmann, F. (2002) What constitutes sound science? Annual Sigma Xi Lecture, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA.
Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakatos, I. (1978) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Lee, A. S. (2001) Editorial, MIS Quarterly 25 (1), pp. iii–vii.
March, S. T. and G. F. Smith (1995) Design and natural science research on information
technology, Decision Support Systems 15, pp. 251–266.
Moggridge, B. (2007) Designing Interactions, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
NSF (2003) Science of Design: Software-Intensive Systems, National Science Foundation,
Washington, DC.
Simon, H. (1996) The Sciences of Artificial, 3rd edn., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Vaishnavi, V. K. and W. Kuechler Jr. (2007) Design Science Research methods and Patterns:
Innovating Information and Communication Technology, Auerbach Publications, Taylor
Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, New York, NY.
Walls, J. G., G. R. Widmeyer et al. (1992) Building an Information System Design Theory for
Vigilant EIS, Information Systems Research 3 (1), pp. 36–59.
Winograd, T. (1996). Bringing Design to Software, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Chapter 2
Design Science Research in Information Systems
Good design is a renaissance attitude that combines
technology, cognitive science, human need, and beauty to
produce something that the world didn’t know it was missing.
– Paola Antonelli
Design is where science and art break even.
– Robin Mathew
2.1 Information Systems Research
Design activities are central to most applied disciplines. Research in design has a
long history in many fields including architecture, engineering, education, psychol-
ogy, and the fine arts (Cross 2001). The computing and information technology
(CIT) field since its advent in the late 1940s has appropriated many of the ideas,
concepts, and methods of design science that have originated in these other dis-
ciplines. However, information systems (IS) as composed of inherently mutable
and adaptable hardware, software, and human interfaces provide many unique and
challenging design problems that call for new and creative ideas.
The design science research paradigm is highly relevant to information systems
(IS) research because it directly addresses two of the key issues of the discipline:
the central, albeit controversial, role of the IT artifact in IS research (Weber 1987;
Orlikowski and Iacono 2001; Benbasat and Zmud 2003) and the perceived lack
of professional relevance of IS research (Benbasat and Zmud 1999; Hirschheim
and Klein 2003). Design science, as conceptualized by Simon (1996), supports a
pragmatic research paradigm that calls for the creation of innovative artifacts to
solve real-world problems. Thus, design science research combines a focus on the
IT artifact with a high priority on relevance in the application domain.
A tradition of design science research in the IS field has been slow to coa-
lesce. Research in IS has been dominated by studies of the impacts of IT artifacts
on organizations, teams, and individuals. Design research was considered the
province of more technical disciplines such as computer science and electrical
engineering. However, in the early 1990s the IS community recognized the impor-
tance of design science research to improve the effectiveness and utility of the
9
C

10 2 Design Science Research in Information Systems
IT artifact in the context of solving real-world business problems. Evidence of
this awakening came in the 1991 formation of the Workshop on Information
Technology and Systems (WITS), ground-breaking research by Nunamaker and
his Electronic Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) team at the University of
Arizona (Nunamaker et al. 1991) and new thinking on how design science is defined,
theorized, and actualized in the IS field (e.g., Iivari 1991; Walls et al. 1992; March
and Smith 1995).
With encouragement from many leaders of the IS community, the author team
of Alan Hevner, Salvatore March, Jinsoo Park, and Sudha Ram thought deeply
about what constitutes good design science research in IS. They adapted the design
research traditions of other fields to the unique contexts of IS design research. In par-
ticular, the seminal thinking of Herbert Simon in Sciences of the Artificial (Simon
1996) supported their ideas. After a number of review cycles and benefiting from
many insightful reviewer comments, their research essay appeared in Management
Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ) in March 2004 (Hevner et al. 2004). This
paper is included in an appendix to this book. The following section provides a con-
cise overview of the paper. The remainder of this chapter discusses the impacts of
the 2004 MISQ paper and expands on its content.
2.2 Summary of Hevner, March, Park, and Ram 2004 MISQ
Paper
Information systems are implemented within an organization for the purpose of
improving the effectiveness and efficiency of that organization. The utility of the
information system and characteristics of the organization, its work systems, its
people, and its development and implementation methodologies together determine
the extent to which that purpose is achieved. It is incumbent upon researchers in
the Information Systems (IS) discipline to further knowledge that aids in the pro-
ductive application of information technology to human organizations and their
management and to develop and communicate knowledge concerning both the
management of information technology and the use of information technology for
managerial and organizational purposes (Zmud 1997).
Acquiring such knowledge involves two complementary but distinct paradigms,
natural (or behavioral) science and design science (March and Smith 1995). The
behavioral science paradigm has its roots in natural science research methods. It
seeks to develop and justify theories (i.e., principles and laws) that explain or
predict organizational and human phenomena surrounding the analysis, design,
implementation, and use of information systems. Such theories ultimately inform
researchers and practitioners of the interactions among people, technology, and
organizations that must be managed if an information system is to achieve its stated
purpose, namely improving the effectiveness and efficiency of an organization.
These theories impact and are impacted by design decisions made with respect to the
system development methodology used and the functional capabilities, information
contents, and human interfaces implemented within the information system.

2.2 Summary of Hevner, March, Park, and Ram 2004 MISQ Paper 11
The design science paradigm has its roots in engineering and the sciences of the
artificial (Simon 1996). It is fundamentally a problem-solving paradigm. It seeks to
create innovations that define the ideas, practices, technical capabilities, and prod-
ucts through which the analysis, design, implementation, and use of information
systems can be effectively and efficiently accomplished. Design science research in
IS addresses what are considered to be wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1984;
Brooks 1987). That is, those problems characterized by
• unstable requirements and constraints based on ill-defined environmental con-
texts,
• complex interactions among subcomponents of the problem,
• inherent flexibility to change design processes as well as design artifacts (i.e.,
malleable processes and artifacts),
• a critical dependence upon human cognitive abilities (e.g., creativity) to produce
effective solutions, and
• a critical dependence upon human social abilities (e.g., teamwork) to produce
effective solutions.
Technological advances are the result of innovative, creative design science pro-
cesses. If not capricious, they are at least arbitrary (Brooks 1987) with respect to
business needs and existing knowledge. Innovations, such as database management
systems, high-level languages, personal computers, software components, intelli-
gent agents, object technology, the Internet, and the World Wide Web, have had
dramatic and at times unintended impacts on the way in which information systems
are conceived, designed, implemented, and managed.
A key insight here is that there is a complementary research cycle between
design science and behavioral science to address fundamental problems faced in
the productive application of information technology (see Fig. 2.1). Technology and
Design
Science
Research
Behavioral
Science
Research
IS Artifacts Provide Utility
IS Theories Provide Truth
Fig. 2.1 Complementary
nature of design science and
behavioral science research

behavior are not dichotomous in an information system. They are inseparable. They
are similarly inseparable in IS research. Philosophically these arguments draw from
a pragmatist philosophy that argues that truth (justified theory) and utility (artifacts
that are effective) are two sides of the same coin and that scientific research should
be evaluated in light of its practical implications. In other words, the practical rele-
vance of the research result should be valued equally with the rigor of the research
performed to achieve the result.
The primary goal of the MISQ paper is to provide an understanding of how to
conduct, evaluate, and present design science research to IS researchers and prac-
ticing business managers. The research activities of design science within the IS
discipline are described via a conceptual framework for understanding information
systems research and a clear set of guidelines or principles are proscribed for con-
ducting and evaluating good design science research (see Table 2.1). A detailed
discussion of each of the seven guidelines is presented in the 2004 MISQ paper. The
proposed guidelines are applied to assess recent exemplar papers published in the
IS literature in order to illustrate how authors, reviewers, and editors can apply the
guidelines consistently. The paper concludes with an analysis of the challenges of
performing high-quality design science research and a call for greater synergistic
efforts between behavioral science and design science researchers.
Table 2.1 Design Science Research Guidelines
Guideline Description
Guideline 1: Design as an Artifact Design science research must produce a
viable artifact in the form of a construct,
a model, a method, or an instantiation
Guideline 2: Problem relevance The objective of design science research is
to develop technology-based solutions to
important and relevant business problems
Guideline 3: Design evaluation The utility, quality, and efficacy of a design
artifact must be rigorously demonstrated
via well-executed evaluation methods
Guideline 4: Research
contributions
Effective design science research must
provide clear and verifiable contributions
in the areas of the design artifact, design
foundations, and/or design
methodologies
Guideline 5: Research rigor Design science research relies upon the
application of rigorous methods in both
the construction and evaluation of the
design artifact
Guideline 6: Design as a search
process
The search for an effective artifact requires
utilizing available means to reach desired
ends while satisfying laws in the problem
environment
Guideline 7: Communication of
research
Design science research must be presented
effectively to both technology-oriented
and management-oriented audiences

2.3 Impacts of 2004 MISQ Paper on Design Science Research 13
2.3 Impacts of 2004 MISQ Paper on Design Science Research
The 2004 MISQ paper has had a strong impact on the field as Information Systems
researchers recognize the values the design science paradigm brings to a research
project. It is the natural desire of researchers to improve things. For some it is not
enough to study and understand why nature is as it is, but they want to know how
they can improve the way it is. Design science research attempts to focus human
creativity into the design and construction of artifacts that have utility in application
environments.
Design science offers an effective means of addressing the relevancy gap that
has plagued academic research, particularly in the management and information
systems disciplines. Natural science research methods are appropriate for the study
of existing and emergent phenomena; however, they are insufficient for the study of
wicked organizational problems, the type of problems that require creative, novel,
and innovative solutions. Such problems are more effectively addressed using type
of paradigm shift offered by design science.
Design science research in the IS field is now better positioned as an equal, com-
plementary partner to the more prevalent behavioral science research paradigm. The
key contribution is a new way of thinking about what makes IS research relevant
to its various audiences of managers, practitioners, and peer researchers in related
fields. Design must still be informed by appropriate theories that explain or pre-
dict human behavior; however, these may be insufficient to enable the development
and adaptation of new and more effective organizational artifacts. Scientific theories
may explain existing or emergent organizational phenomena related to extant orga-
nizational forms and artifacts but they cannot account for the qualitative novelty
achieved by human intention, creativity, and innovation in the design and appropri-
ation of such artifacts. That is, science, the process of understanding what is, may
be insufficient for design, the process of understanding what can be.
Researchers in application domains as disparate as health care, E-commerce,
biology, transportation, and the fine arts identify the key role of designed artifacts
in improving domain-specific systems and processes. The models and guidelines
of the 2004 MISQ paper support researchers to bring a rigorous design science
research process into projects that heretofore had not clearly described how new
ideas become embedded in purposeful artifacts and then how those artifacts are
field tested in real-world environments.
Since the 2004 publication of the Hevner, March, Park, and Ram paper, the
broadening recognition of design science research in the IS field has led to a number
of important new activities and research directions:
– A new, multi-disciplinary research conference, Design Science Research in
Information Systems Technology (DESRIST), has been established and four
offerings of the conference have been held from 2006 to 2009. An important char-
acteristic of DESRIST has been its multi-disciplinary attendance and agenda. This
environment has allowed the IS community to interact more closely with other
design-focused disciplines, such as engineering and architecture.

– A special issue of MISQ on Design Science Research appeared in 2008 (MISQ
2008).
– The design science guidelines described in this paper have provided a structured
path for doctoral students interested in using this methodology in their research,
structuring and legitimizing their research. Most IS doctoral programs in major
universities now provide a research seminar dedicated to design science research
methods and projects.
– Leading international scholars in IS are actively extending the research ideas
found in the 2004 MISQ paper. Examples include research by Gregor and
Jones (2007), Iivari (2007), and Peffers, Tuunanen, Rothenberger, and Chatterjee
(2008).
– Leading journals in the IS field have expanded their boards to include more senior
editors and associate editors who have used and who now understand the design
science approach. This will ultimately pave the way for more design science
research papers to get published and thus benefit the whole field by enhancing
the relevance of IS research.
It is exciting to see the ongoing discussions and increased interest in design
science research projects in the IS field. Information systems and organiza-
tional routines are among the key components of organizational design as they
are extensions of human cognitive capabilities. They are the tools of knowl-
edge work enabling new organizational forms and providing management and
decision-making support. For example, incentive structures related to job perfor-
mance such as achieving sales, product quality, or customer satisfaction goals
require information gathering and analysis capabilities. Management of outsourc-
ing and inter-organizational partnerships requires secure information sharing.
Identification of problems and opportunities requires the gathering and analysis
of business intelligence. More and more frequently business decisions are made
relying on information from the computer-based analysis and recommendations.
Similarly, organizational routines are intended to provide guidance to human action
within prescribed organizational contexts. Yet even such artifacts are appropri-
ated and adapted by humans in ways and for purposes that the designers may
not have envisioned. With the renewed interest in design science research in the
information systems and organizational science disciplines, future research will
focus on the co-design of information processing capabilities and organizational
structures.
2.4 Extending the Reach of Design Science Research in IS
The critical reactions (both positive and negative) from the IS community toward the
2004 MISQ paper and the design science guidelines have led to several important
extensions for the application of design science ideas to IS research. To conclude
this chapter, a number of key issues are addressed.

2.4 Extending the Reach of Design Science Research in IS 15
2.4.1 Design Science Research vs. Professional Design
One issue that must be clearly addressed in design science research is differentiating
high-quality professional design or system building from design science research.
The difference is in the nature of the problems and solutions. Professional design
is the application of existing knowledge to organizational problems, such as con-
structing a financial or marketing information system using best practice artifacts
(constructs, models, methods, and instantiations) existing in the knowledge base.
On the other hand, design science research addresses important unsolved prob-
lems in unique or innovative ways or solved problems in more effective or efficient
ways. The key differentiator between professional design and design research is the
clear identification of a contribution to the archival knowledge base of foundations
and methodologies and the communication of the contribution to the stakeholder
communities.
In the early stages of a discipline or with significant changes in the environ-
ment, each new artifact created for that discipline or changed environment is an
experiment that poses a question to nature (Newell and Simon 1976). Existing
knowledge is used where appropriate; however, often the requisite knowledge is
nonexistent. In other words the knowledge base is inadequate. Reliance on creativ-
ity and trial and error search are characteristic of such research efforts. As design
science research results are codified in the knowledge base, they become best prac-
tices. Professional design and system building then become the routine application
of the knowledge base to known problems.
2.4.2 Design as Research vs. Researching Design
Design science research has been interpreted as including two distinctly different
classes of research – ‘design as research’ and ‘researching design.’ While the 2004
MISQ paper focuses on the former class of research, it is important to recognize the
existence and importance of both types of research.
Design as Research encompasses the idea that doing innovative design that
results in clear contributions to the knowledge base constitutes research. Knowledge
generated via design can take several forms including constructs, models, meth-
ods, and instantiations (March and Smith 1995). Design research projects are often
performed in a specific application context and the resulting designs and design
research contributions may be clearly influenced by the opportunities and con-
straints of the application domain. Additional research may be needed to generalize
the research results to broader domains. Design as research, thus, provides an impor-
tant strand of research that values research outcomes that focus on improvement of
an artifact in a specific domain as the primary research concern and, then, seeks
a broader, more general understanding of theories and phenomena surrounding the
artifact as an extended outcome.
Researching Design shifts the focus to a study of designs, designers, and design
processes. The community of researchers engaged in this mode of research was

organized under the umbrella of the design research society starting as early as
the mid-1960s. Because of their focus on methods of designing, they have been
able to articulate and follow the goal of generating domain-independent understand-
ing of design processes, although their investigations have been focused largely in
the fields of architecture, engineering, and product design. Although it is difficult
to provide unambiguous and universally accepted definitions of design processes,
working definitions suggest designing is an iterative process of planning, generat-
ing alternatives, and selecting a satisfactory design. Examples of work from this
stream, therefore, include use of representations and languages (Oxman 1997), use
of cognitive schemas (Goldschmidt 1994), and theoretical explorations (Love 2002).
Although similarities are many, the two fields of design study have been different
in their focus and trajectory. Of the differences, three are most visible. First, design
as research emphasizes the domain in which the design activity will take place, plac-
ing a premium on innovativeness within a specific context. In contrast, researching
design emphasizes increased understanding of design methods often independent
of the domain. Second, the domains of study for the first subfield have typically
been the information and computing technologies as opposed to architecture and
engineering for the second. Finally, the closest alliances from the design as research
have been formed with disciplines such as computer science, software engineering,
and organization science. Researching design is more closely allied with cognitive
science and professional fields such as architecture and engineering.
2.4.3 Design Science Research Cycles
The 2004 MISQ paper presents design science as a research paradigm to be
employed in IS research projects. As such, the discussion does not propose a
detailed process for performing design science research. However, a key insight can
be gained by identifying and understanding the existence of three design science
research cycles in any design research project as shown in Fig. 2.2 (Hevner 2007).
Knowledge Base
Design Science Research
Build Design
Artifacts
Processes
Evaluate
Design
Cycle
Application Domain
• People
• Organizational Systems
• Technical
Systems
• Problems
Opportunities
Relevance Cycle
• Requirements
• Field Testing
Rigor Cycle
• Grounding
• Additions to KB
Foundations
• Scientific Theories
Methods
• Experience
Expertise
• Meta-Artifacts (Design
Products Design
Processes)
Environment
Fig. 2.2 Design science research cycles

Figure 2.2 borrows the IS research framework found in (Hevner et al. 2004) and
overlays a focus on three inherent research cycles. The Relevance Cycle bridges the
contextual environment of the research project with the design science activities.
The Rigor Cycle connects the design science activities with the knowledge base of
scientific foundations, experience, and expertise that informs the research project.
The central Design Cycle iterates between the core activities of building and evalu-
ating the design artifacts and processes of the research. These three cycles must be
present and clearly identifiable in a design science research project. The following
sections briefly expand on the definitions and meanings of each cycle.
2.4.3.1 The Relevance Cycle
Design science research is motivated by the desire to improve the environment by
the introduction of new and innovative artifacts and the processes for building these
artifacts (Simon 1996). An application domain consists of the people, organiza-
tional systems, and technical systems that interact to work toward a goal. Good
design science research often begins by identifying and representing opportunities
and problems in an actual application environment.
Thus, the relevance cycle initiates design science research with an application
context that not only provides the requirements for the research (e.g., the opportu-
nity/problem to be addressed) as inputs but also defines acceptance criteria for the
ultimate evaluation of the research results. Does the design artifact improve the envi-
ronment and how can this improvement be measured? The output from the design
science research must be returned into the environment for study and evaluation in
the application domain. The field study of the artifact can be executed by means of
appropriate technology transfer methods such as action research (Cole et al. 2005;
Jarvinen 2007).
The results of the field testing will determine whether additional iterations of the
relevance cycle are needed in this design science research project. The new artifact
may have deficiencies in functionality or in its inherent qualities (e.g., performance,
usability) that may limit its utility in practice. Another result of field testing may be
that the requirements input to the design science research were incorrect or incom-
plete with the resulting artifact satisfying the requirements but still inadequate to
the opportunity or problem presented. Another iteration of the relevance cycle will
commence with feedback from the environment from field testing and a restatement
of the research requirements as discovered from actual experience.
2.4.3.2 The Rigor Cycle
Design science draws from a vast knowledge base of scientific theories and
engineering methods that provides the foundations for rigorous design science
research. As importantly, the knowledge base also contains two types of additional
knowledge:

• The experiences and expertise that define the state of the art in the application
domain of the research.
• The existing artifacts and processes (or meta-artifacts (Iivari 2007)) found in the
application domain.
The rigor cycle provides past knowledge to the research project to ensure its inno-
vation. It is contingent on the researchers to thoroughly research and reference the
knowledge base in order to guarantee that the designs produced are research contri-
butions and not routine designs based on the application of known design processes
and the appropriation of known design artifacts.
While rigorous advances in design are what separate a research project from
the practice of routine design, we need to be careful to identify the sources and
types of rigor appropriate for design research. The risk comes when experts in
other research paradigms attempt to apply their standards of rigor to design research
projects in which creative inspiration or gut instinct may lead to design decisions. To
insist that all design decisions and design processes be based on grounded behav-
ioral or mathematical theories may not be appropriate or even feasible for a truly
cutting-edge design artifact. Such theories may as yet be undiscovered or incom-
plete and the research activities of design and evaluation of the artifact may advance
the development and study of such theories.
Consideration of rigor in design research is based on the researcher’s skilled
selection and application of the appropriate theories and methods for constructing
and evaluating the artifact. Design science research is grounded on existing ideas
drawn from the domain knowledge base. Inspiration for creative design activity can
be drawn from many different sources to include rich opportunities/problems from
the application environment, existing artifacts, analogies/metaphors, and theories
(Iivari 2007). This list of design inspiration can be expanded to include additional
sources of creative insights (Csikszentmihalyi 1996).
Additions to the knowledge base as results of design research will include
any additions or extensions to the original theories and methods made during the
research, the new artifacts (design products and processes), and all experiences
gained from performing the iterative design cycles and field testing the artifact in the
application environment. It is imperative that a design research project makes a com-
pelling case for its rigorous bases and contributions lest the research be dismissed as
a case of routine design. Definitive research contributions to the knowledge base are
essential to selling the research to an academic audience just as useful contributions
to the environment are the key selling points to a practitioner audience.
2.4.3.3 The Design Cycle
The internal design cycle is the heart of any design science research project. This
cycle of research activities iterates more rapidly between the construction of an
artifact, its evaluation, and subsequent feedback to refine the design further. Simon
(1996) describes the nature of this cycle as generating design alternatives and evalu-
ating the alternatives against requirements until a satisfactory design is achieved. As

discussed above, the requirements are input from the relevance cycle and the design
and evaluation theories and methods are drawn from the rigor cycle. However, the
design cycle is where the hard work of design science research is done. It is impor-
tant to understand the dependencies of the design cycle on the other two cycles while
appreciating its relative independence during the actual execution of the research.
During the performance of the design cycle a balance must be maintained
between the efforts spent in constructing and evaluating the evolving design artifact.
Both activities must be convincingly based on relevance and rigor. Having a strong
grounded argument for the construction of the artifact, as discussed above, is insuf-
ficient if the subsequent evaluation is weak. Juhani (2007) states, “The essence of
Information Systems as design science lies in the scientific evaluation of artifacts.”
Artifacts must be rigorously and thoroughly tested in laboratory and experimental
situations before releasing them into field testing along the relevance cycle. This
calls for multiple iterations of the design cycle in design science research before
contributions are output into the relevance cycle and the rigor cycle.
2.4.4 A Checklist for Design Science Research
While the seven guidelines in the 2004 MISQ paper have been largely accepted as
integral to top quality design science research, requests have been made for a more
specific checklist of questions to evaluate a design research project. The questions
in Table 2.2 provide such a checklist that has been used to assess progress on design
research projects. In practice, design researchers have found these questions to form
a useful checklist to ensure that their projects address the key aspects of design
science research. To demonstrate the relationship of these questions with the three
research cycles discussed in the previous section, Fig. 2.3 maps the eight questions
to the appropriate research cycle.
2.4.5 Publication of Design Science Research
Guideline 7 (see Table 2.1) addresses the dissemination of design science research
results in appropriate journal outlets. Much feedback to the 2004 MISQ paper has
centered on the willingness of top-ranked journals in the IS and computer science
(CS) fields to publish design science results. Any discussion of top-quality publi-
cation outlets must draw a distinction between journals with technology-focused
audiences and management-focused audiences. Good design science research pro-
duces results of interest for both audiences. Technology audiences need sufficient
detail to enable the described artifact to be constructed (implemented) and used
within an appropriate context. It is important for such audiences to understand
the processes by which the artifact was constructed and evaluated. This estab-
lishes repeatability of the research project and builds the knowledge base for further
research extensions by future design science researchers.

Table 2.2 Design science research checklist
Questions Answers
1. What is the research question (design
requirements)?
2. What is the artifact? How is the artifact
represented?
3. What design processes (search heuristics) will
be used to build the artifact?
4. How are the artifact and the design processes
grounded by the knowledge base? What, if any,
theories support the artifact design and the
design process?
5. What evaluations are performed during the
internal design cycles? What design
improvements are identified during each design
cycle?
6. How is the artifact introduced into the
application environment and how is it field
tested? What metrics are used to demonstrate
artifact utility and improvement over previous
artifacts?
7. What new knowledge is added to the
knowledge base and in what form (e.g.,
peer-reviewed literature, meta-artifacts, new
theory, new method)?
8. Has the research question been satisfactorily
addressed?
Fig. 2.3 Questions mapped to three design research cycles
On the other hand, management audiences need sufficient detail to determine
if organizational resources should be committed to constructing (or purchasing)
and using the artifact within their specific organizational context. The rigor of the
artifact design process must be complemented by a thorough presentation of the

References 21
experimental design of the artifact’s field test in a realistic organizational environ-
ment. The emphasis must be on the importance of the problem and the novelty and
utility of the solution approach realized in the artifact.
References
Benbasat, I. and R. Zmud (1999) Empirical research in information systems: the question of
relevance, MIS Quarterly 23 (1), pp. 3–16.
Benbasat, I. and R. Zmud (2003) The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and
communicating the discipline’s core properties, MIS Quarterly 27 (2), pp. 183–194.
Brooks, F., Jr. (1987) No silver bullet: essence and accidents of software engineering, IEEE
Computer 20 (4), pp. 10–19.
Cole, R., S. Purao, M. Rossi, and M. Sein (2005), Being proactive: where action research meets
design research, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Conference on Information
Systems, Las Vegas, pp. 325–336.
Cross, N. (2001) Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline vs. Design Science, Design
Issues 17 (3), pp. 49–55.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996) Creativity: Flow and Psychology of Discovery and Invention,
HarperCollins, New York.
Goldschmidt, G. (1994) On visual thinking: the vis kids of architecture, Design Studies 15 (2), pp.
158–174.
Gregor, S. and D. Jones (2007) The anatomy of a design theory, Journal of the AIS 8 (5), Article 2,
pp. 312–335.
Hevner, A., S. March, J. Park, and S. Ram (2004) Design science in information systems research,
MIS Quarterly 28 (1), pp. 75–105.
Hevner, A. (2007) A three-cycle view of design science research, Scandinavian Journal of
Information Systems 19 (2), pp. 87–92.
Hirschheim, R. and H. Klein (2003) Crisis in the IS field? A critical reflection on the state of the
discipline, Journal of the AIS 4 (5), pp. 237–293.
Iivari, J. (1991) A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development, European
Journal of Information Systems 1 (4), pp. 249–272.
Iivari, J. (2007) A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science, Scandinavian
Journal of IS 19 (2), pp. 39–64.
Jarvinen, P. (2007) Action research is similar to design science, Quality Quantity 41, pp. 37–54.
Love, T. (2002) Constructing a coherent cross-disciplinary body of theory about designing
and designs: some philosophical issues, International Journal of Design Studies 23 (3), pp.
345–361.
March, S. and G. Smith (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology,
Decision Support Systems 15, pp. 251–266.
MISQ (2008) Special issue on design science research, MIS Quarterly 32 (4), pp. 725–868.
Newell, A. and H. Simon (1976) Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search,
Communications of the ACM 19 (3), pp. 113–126.
Nunamaker, J., M. Chen, and T. D. M. Purdin (1991) Systems development in information systems
research, Journal of Management Information Systems 7 (3), pp. 89–106.
Orlikowski, W. and C. Iacono (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT
research: a call for theorizing the IT artifact, Information Systems Research 12, pp. 121–134.
Oxman, R. (1997) Design by re-representation: a model of visual reasoning in design, Design
Studies 18 (4), pp. 329–347.
Peffers, K., T. Tuunanen, M. Rothenberger, and S. Chatterjee (2008) A design science research
methodology for information systems research, Journal of Management Information Systems
24 (3), pp. 45–77.

Rittel, H. and M. Webber (1984) Planning problems are wicked problems, in Developments in
Design Methodology, N. Cross (ed.), John Wiley Sons, New York, pp. 135–144.
Simon, H. (1996) The Sciences of Artificial, 3rd edn., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Walls, J., G. Widmeyer, and O. El Sawy (1992) Building an information system design theory for
vigilant EIS, Information Systems Research 3 (1), pp. 36–59.
Weber, R. (1997) Towards a theory of artifacts: a paradigmatic base for information systems
research, Journal of Information Systems 1 (1), pp. 3–20.
Zmud, R. (1997) Editor’s comments, MIS Quarterly 21 (2), pp. xxi–xxii.

Chapter 3
Design Science Research Frameworks
People sometimes ask me what they should read to find out
about artificial intelligence. Herbert Simon’s book Sciences of
the Artificial is always on the list I give them. Every page issues
a challenge to conventional thinking, and the layman who
digests it well will certainly understand what the field of
artificial intelligence hopes to accomplish. I recommend it in the
same spirit that I recommend Freud to people who ask about
psychoanalysis, or Piaget to those who ask about child
psychology: If you want to learn about a subject, start by
reading its founding fathers.
– George A. Miller, Complex Information Processing
3.1 Understanding the Natural and Artificial Worlds
The founding father of design science was Herbert E. Simon. Well known for his
work on AI, decision making, and economics, Simon wrote a thought-provoking
book called Sciences of the Artificial in the 1960s (Simon 1996). His profound
insight was that certain phenomena or entities are “artificial” in the sense that
they are contingent to the goals or purposes of their designer. In other words,
they could have been different had the goals been different (as opposed to natu-
ral phenomena which are necessarily evolved given natural laws). He further posits:
Since artifacts are contingent, how is a science of the artificial possible? How to
study artifacts empirically? On the other hand, Simon also deals with the notion of
complexity. This is necessary because artificiality and complexity are inextricably
interwoven.
We are all familiar with natural science (especially physics and biology) but the
world around us is mostly man-made, i.e., artificial. It evolves with mankind’s goals.
So science must encompass both natural and goal-dependent (artificial) phenomena.
Simon in his book discusses how to relate these two. There are two perspectives on
23
C

24 3 Design Science Research Frameworks
artifacts, synthetic vs. analytic. The science of the artificial is really the science
(analytic or descriptive) of engineering (synthetic or prescriptive).
Artifacts
• are synthesized,
• may imitate appearances of natural things,
• can be characterized in terms of functions, goals, adaptation, and
• are often discussed in terms of both imperatives and descriptives.
3.2 Toward a Theory of Complex Systems
Simon’s seminal work gives us first clues toward understanding what he called
“complex systems.” Fulfillment of purpose involves a relation between the arti-
fact, its environment, and a purpose or goal. Alternatively, one can view it as the
interaction of an inner environment (internal mechanism), an outer environment
(conditions for goal attainment), and the interface between the two. In this view,
the real nature of the artifact is the interface. Both the inner and outer environments
are abstracted away. The science of the artificial should focus on the interface, the
same way design focuses on the “functioning.”
Simulation is the imitation of the interface and is implied by the notion of arti-
ficiality. Simulation can also be viewed as adaptation to the same goal. It can be
used to better understand the original (simulated) entity because simulation can
help predict behavior by making explicit “new” knowledge, i.e., knowledge that
is indeed derivable but only with great effort. Simulation is even possible for poorly
understood systems by abstraction of organizational properties.
Computers are organizations of elementary components whose function only
matters. They are a special class of artifacts that can be used to perform simulations
(in particular of human cognition). They can be studied in the abstract, namely using
mathematics. Yet, they can and must also be studied empirically. Their study as an
empirical phenomenon requires simulation (example of time-sharing systems). In
conclusion, the behavior of computers will turn out to be governed by simple laws,
the apparent complexity resulting from that of the environment they are trying to
adapt to.
In his book, Simon notices that complexity is a general property of sys-
tems that are made of different parts and that the emergent behavior is hard to
characterize.
In the first part of his book he argues that complexity takes the form of hierarchy
and that hierarchical systems evolve faster than nonhierarchical ones. Very gen-
erally, a hierarchy is a recursive partition of a system into subsystems. Examples
of hierarchies are common in social, biological, physical, and symbolic (e.g.,
books) systems. In biological systems, it is argued that hierarchical systems evolve
faster because the many subsystems form as many intermediate stable stages in

3.3 Systems Development in Information Systems Research 25
the process. Similarly in the problem-solving activity, mainly a selective trial-
and-error process, intermediate results constitute stable subassemblies that indicate
progress.
The second part of his argument is that hierarchies have the property of near
decomposability, namely that (1) the short-term (high-frequency) behavior of each
subsystem is approximately independent of the other components and (2) in the
long run, the (low-frequency) behavior of a subsystem depends on that of other
components in only an aggregate way. The example of cubicle and room temper-
ature in a building is provided. Other examples are common in natural and social
systems.
The last part of the thesis deals with system descriptions. It is argued that the
description of a system need not be as complex as the system due to the redundancy
present in the latter. Redundancy results from the fact that there are only a limited
number of distinct elementary components. Complex systems are obtained by vary-
ing their combination. Also, the near-decomposability property can be generalized
to the “empty world hypothesis” that states that most things are only weakly con-
nected with most other things. Therefore, descriptions may contain only a fraction
of the connections. There are two main types of descriptions. State descriptions and
process descriptions deal with the world as sensed and as acted upon, respectively.
The behavior of any adaptive organism results from trying to establish correlations
between goals and actions.
In conclusion, a general theory of complex systems must refer to a theory of
hierarchy. And the near-decomposability property simplifies both the behavior of
a complex system and its description. In the study of DSR, one repeatedly stum-
bles upon such complex systems and their behavior. Even to this date, Herbert
Simon’s work remains the most influential thinking that guides this field of design
and artificial sciences.
3.3 Systems Development in Information Systems Research
One of the earliest contribution of design science to IS is the seminal work done
by Nunamaker et al. (1990–91). They claim that the central nature of systems
development leads to a multi-methodological approach to IS research that con-
sists of four research strategies: theory building, experimentation, observation, and
systems development. Theory building includes development of new ideas and con-
cepts and construction of conceptual frameworks, new methods, or models (e.g.,
mathematical models, simulation models, and data models) (Nunamaker et al.
1990–91). Theories (particularly mathematical models) are usually concerned with
generic system behaviors and are subject to rigorous analysis. Experimentation on
the other hand includes research strategies such as laboratory and field experiments,
as well as computer and experimental simulations. It straddles the gulf between the-
ory building and observation in that experimentation may concern itself with either
the validation of the underlying theories or the issues of acceptance or technology

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

尺許小人連遱而出，至不可數。眾噪起，並擊之。杖杖皆火，瞬息四
散。惟遺一小髻如胡桃殼然，紗飾而金線，嗅之，騷臭不可言。
〈西僧〉
兩僧自西域來，一赴五台，一卓錫泰出。其服色言貌，俱與中
國殊異。自言曆火焰山，山重重氣熏騰若鑪竈，凡行必於雨後，心凝
目注，輕蹟步履之，誤蹴山石，則飛焰騰灼焉。又經流沙河，河中有
水晶山，峭壁插天際，四面瑩徹，似無所隔。又有隘可容單車，二龍
交角對口把守之。過者先拜龍，龍許過，則口角自開。龍色白，鱗鬣
皆如晶然。僧言途中曆十八寒暑矣。離西土者十有二人，至中國僅存
其二。西土傳中國名山四：一泰山，一華山，一五台，一落伽也。相
傳山上遍地皆黄金，觀音、文殊猶生。能至其處，則身便是佛，長生
不死。
聽其所言狀，亦猶世人之慕西土也。倘有西游人，與東渡者中
途相值，各述所有，當必相視失笑，兩免跋涉矣。
〈老饕〉
邢德，澤州人，綠林之傑也，能挽強弩，發連矢，稱一時絕
技。而生平落拓，不利營謀，出門輒虧其資。兩京大賈往往喜與邢
俱，途中恃以無恐。
會冬初，有二三估客薄假以資，邀同販鬻，邢複自罄其囊，將
並居貨。有友善蔔，因詣之，友占曰：“此爻爲‘悔’，所操之業，即不
母而子亦有損焉。”邢不樂，欲中止，而諸客強速之行。至都果符所
占。
臘將半，疋馬出都門，自念新歲無資，倍益怏悶。時晨霧蒙
蒙，暫趨臨路店解裝覓飲。見一頒白叟共兩少年酌北牖下，一僮侍黄
發蓬蓬然。邢於南座，對叟休止。僮行觴誤翻柈具，污叟衣。少年

怒，立摘其耳。捧巾持窣，代叟揩試。既見僮手拇，俱有鐵箭镮，厚
半寸，每一罥約重二兩餘。食已，叟命少年於革囊中探出鏹物，堆累
幾上，稱秤握算，可飲數杯時，始緘裹完好。少年於櫪中牽一黑跛騾
來，扶叟乘之，僮亦跨羸馬相從，出門去。兩少年各腰弓矢，捉馬俱
出。
邢窺多金，窮睛旁睨，饞焰若炙，輟飲，急尾之。視叟與僮猶
款段於前，乃下道斜馳出叟前，緊銜關弓怒相向。叟俯脱左足靴，微
笑雲：“而不識得老饕也？”邢滿引一矢去。叟仰臥鞍上，伸其足，開
兩指如鉗，夾矢住。笑曰：“技但止此，何須而翁手敵？”邢怒，出其
絕技，一矢剛發，後矢繼至。曳手掇一，似未防其連珠，後矢直貫其
口，踣然而堕，銜矢僵眠。僮亦下。邢喜，謂其已斃，近臨之。叟吐
矢躍起，鼓掌曰：“初會面，何便作此惡劇？”邢大驚，馬亦駭逸，以
此知叟異，不敢複返。
走三四十里，值方面綱紀，囊物赴都，要取之，略可千金，意
氣始得颺。方疾騖間，聞後有蹄聲，回首則僮易跛騾來，駛若飛。叱
曰：“男子勿行！獵取之貨宜少瓜分。”邢曰：“汝識‘連珠箭邢
某’否？”僮雲：“適已承教矣。”邢以僮貌不颺，又無弓矢，易之。一發
三矢連遱不斷，如群隼飛翔。僮殊不忙迫，手接二，口銜一。笑
曰：“如此技藝，辱寞煞人！乃翁傯遽，未暇尋得弓來，此物亦無用
處，請即擲還。”遂於指上脱鐵镮，穿矢其中，以手力擲，嗚嗚風鳴。
邢急撥以弓，弦適觸鐵镮，鏗然斷絕，弓亦綻裂。邢驚絕，未及覷
避，矢過貫耳，不覺翻墜。僮下騎便將蒐括，邢以弓臥撻之，僮奪弓
去，拗摺爲兩，又摺爲四，抛置之。已，乃一手握邢兩臂，一足踏邢
兩股，臂若縛，股若壓，極力不能少動。腰中束帶雙叠可駢三指許，
僮以一手捏之，隨手斷如灰燼。取金已，乃超乘，作一擧手，致聲“孟
浪”，霍然徑去。
邢歸，卒爲善土，每向人述往事不諱。此與劉東山事蓋仿佛
焉。

〈連城〉
喬生，晉寧人，少負才名。年二十餘，猶偃蹇，爲人有肝膽。
與顧生善，顧卒，時恤其妻子。邑宰以文相契重，宰終於任，家口淹
滯不能歸，生破產扶柩，往返二千餘里。以故士林益重之，而家由此
益替。
史孝廉有女字連城，工刺繡，知書，父嬌愛之。出所刺《倦繡
圖》，征少年題詠，意在擇婿。生獻詩雲：“慵鬟高髻綠婆娑，早向蘭
窗繡碧荷。刺到鴛鴦魂欲斷，暗停針線蹙雙蛾。”又讚挑繡之工
雲：“繡線挑來似寫生，幅中花鳥自天成。當年織錦非長技，幸把回文
感聖明。”女得詩喜，對父稱賞，父貧之。女逢人輒稱道，又遣媼嬌父
命，贈金以助燈火。生歎曰：“連城我知己也！”傾懷結想，如饑思
啖。
無何，女許字於鹾賈之子王化成，生始絕望，然夢魂中猶佩戴
之。未幾女病瘵沉痼不起，有西域頭陀自謂能療，但須男子膺肉一
錢，搗合藥屑。史使人詣王家告婿，婚笑曰：“癡老翁，欲我剜心頭肉
也！”使返。史乃言於人曰：“有能割肉者妻之。”生聞而往，自出白
刃，诪膺授僧。血濡袍褲，僧敷藥始止。合藥三丸，三日服盡，疾若
失。史將踐其言，先告王。王怒，欲訟官。史乃設筵招生，以千金列
幾上。曰：“重負大德，請以相報。”因具白背盟之由。生怫然曰：“僕
所以不愛膺肉者，聊以報知己耳。豈貨肉哉！”拂袖而歸。女聞之，意
良不忍，托媼慰諭之，且雲：“以彼才華，當不久落。天下何患無佳
人？我夢不詳，三年必死，不必與人爭此泉下物也。”生告媼曰：“‘士
爲知己者死’，不以色也。誠恐連城未必真知我，但得真知我，不諧何
害？”媼代女郎矢誠自剖。生曰：“果爾，相逢時當爲我一笑，死無
憾！”媼既去。逾數日生偶出，遇女自叔氏歸，睨之，女秋波轉顧，啟
齒嫣然。生大喜曰：“連城真知我者！”
會王氏來議吉期，女前症又作，數月尋死。生往臨弔，一痛而
絕。史異送其家。生自知已死，亦無所戚，出村去，猶冀一見連城。

遙望南北一道，行人連緒如蟻，因亦混身雜蹟其中。俄頃入一廨署值
顧生，驚問：“君何得來？”即把手將送令歸。生太息言：“心事殊未
了。”顧曰：“僕在此典牘，頗得委任，倘可效力，不惜也。”生問連
城，顧即導生鏇轉多所，見連城與一白衣女郎，淚睫慘黛，藉坐廊
隅。見生至，驟起似喜，略問所來。生曰：“卿死，僕何敢生！”連城
泣曰：“如此負義人，尚不吐棄之，身殉何爲？然已不能許君今生，願
矢來世耳。”生告顧曰：“有事君自去，僕樂死不願生矣。但煩稽連城
托生何里，行與俱去耳。”顧諾而去，白衣女郎問生何人，連城爲緬述
之，女郎聞之，若不勝悲。連城告生曰：“此妾同姓，小字賓娘，長沙
史太守女。一路同來，遂相憐愛。”生視之，意態憐人。方欲研問，而
顧已返，向生賀曰：“我爲君平章已確，即教小娘子從君返魂，好
否？”兩人各喜。方將拜别，賓娘大哭曰：“姊去，我安歸？乞垂憐
救，妾爲姊捧窣耳。”連城淒然，無所爲計，轉謀生。生又哀顧，顧難
之，峻辭以爲不可，生固強之。乃曰：“試妄爲之。”去食頃而返，搖
手曰：“何如！誠萬分不能爲力矣！”賓娘聞之，宛轉嬌啼，惟依連城
肘下，恐其即去。慘怛無術，相對默默，而睹其愁顏戚容，使人肺腑
酸柔。顧生憤然曰：“請擕賓娘去，脱有愆尤，小生拚身受之！”賓娘
乃喜從生出，生憂其道遠無侶。賓娘曰：“妾從君去，不願歸也。”生
曰：“卿大癡矣！不歸，何以得活也？他日至湖南勿複走避，爲幸多
矣。”適有兩媼攝牒赴長沙，生屬賓娘，泣别而去。
途中，連城行蹇緩，里餘輒一息，凡十餘息始見里門。連城
曰：“重生後，懼有反覆，請索妾骸骨來，妾以君家生，當無悔
也。”生然之。偕歸生家。女惕惕若不能步，生伫待之。女曰：“妾至
此，四肢搖搖，似無所主。志恐不遂，尚宜審謀，不然生後何能自
由？”相將入側廂中。默定少時，連城笑曰：“君憎妾耶？”生驚問其
故。赧然曰：“恐事不諧，重負君矣。請先以鬼報也。”生喜，極盡歡
戀。因徘徊不敢遽出，寄廂中者三日。連城曰：“諺有之：‘醜婦終須
見姑嫜。’戚戚於此，終非久計。”乃促生入，才至靈寢，豁然頓蘇。
家人驚異，進以湯水。生乃使人要史來，請得連城之屍，自言能活
之。史喜，從其言。方舁入室，視之已醒。告父曰：“兒已委身喬郎

矣，更無歸理。如有變動，但仍一死！”史歸，遣婢往役給奉。王聞，
具詞申理，官受賂，判歸王。生憤懑欲死，亦無奈之。連城至王家，
忿不飲食，惟乞速死，室無人，則帶懸梁上。越日，益憊，殆將奄
逝，王懼，送歸史；史複舁歸生。王知之亦無如何，遂安焉。連城
起，每念賓娘，欲遣信探之，以道遠而艱於往。一日家人進曰：“門有
車馬。”夫婦出視，則賓娘已至庭中矣。相見悲喜。太守親詣送女，生
延入。太守曰：“小女子賴君複生，誓不他適，今從其志。”生叩謝如
禮。孝廉亦至，叙宗好焉。生名年，字大年。
異史氏曰：“一笑之知，許之以身，世人或議其癡。彼田横五百
人豈盡愚哉！此知希之貴，賢豪所以感結而不能自已也。顧茫茫海
内，遂使錦繡才人，僅傾心於峨眉之一笑也。悲夫！
〈霍生〉
文登霍生與嚴生少相狎，長相謔也，口給交禦。惟恐不工。霍
有鄰嫗，曾與嚴妻導產，偶與霍婦語，言其私處有兩贅疣，婦以告
霍。霍與同黨者謀，窺嚴將至，故竊語雲：“某妻與我最昵。”眾不
信。霍因捏造端末，且雲：“如不信，其陰側有雙疣。”嚴止窗外，聽
之既悉，不入徑去。至家苦掠其妻，妻不服，搒益殘，妻不堪虐，自
經死。霍始大悔，然亦不敢向嚴而白其誣矣。
嚴妻既死，其鬼夜哭，擧家不得寧焉。無何，嚴暴卒，鬼乃不
哭。霍婦夢女子披發大叫曰：“我死得良苦，汝夫妻何得歡樂耶！”既
醒而病，數日尋卒。霍亦夢女子指數詬罵，以掌批其吻。驚而寤，覺
唇際隱痛，捫之高起，三日而成雙疣，遂爲痼疾。不敢大言笑，啟吻
太驟，則痛不可忍。
異史氏曰：“死能爲厲，其氣冤也。私病加於唇吻，神而近於戲
矣。”

邑王氏，與同窗某狎。其妻歸寧，王知其驢善驚，先伏叢莽
中，伺婦至，暴出，驢驚婦堕，惟一僮從，不能扶婦乘。王乃殷勤抱
控甚至，婦亦不識誰何。王颺颺以此得意，謂僮逐驢去，因得私其婦
於莽中，述衵褲履甚悉。某聞，大慚而去。少間，自窗隙中見某一手
握刃，一手捉妻來，意甚怒惡。大懼，逾垣而逃。某從之，追二三里
地不及，始返。王盡力極奔，肺葉開張，以是得吼疾，數年不愈焉。
〈汪士秀〉
汪士秀，廬州人，剛勇有力，能擧石舂，父子善蹴鞠。父四十
餘，過錢塘沒焉。
積八九年，汪以故詣湖南，夜泊洞庭，時望月東升，澄江如
練。方眺矚間，忽有五人自湖中出，擕大席平鋪水面，略可半畝。紛
陳酒饌，饌器磨觸作響，然聲溫厚不類陶瓦。已而三人踐席坐，二人
侍飲。坐者一衣黄，二衣白。頭上巾皆皂色，峨峨然下連肩背，制絕
奇古，而月色微茫，不甚可晰。侍者俱褐衣，其一似童，其一似叟
也。但聞黄衣人曰：“今夜月色大佳，足供快飲。”白衣者曰：“此夕風
景，大似廣利王宴梨花島時。”三人互勸，引釂競浮白。但語略小即不
可聞，舟人隱伏不敢動息。汪細審侍者叟酷類父，而聽其言又非父
聲。
二漏將殘，忽一人曰：“趁此明月，宜一擊球爲樂。”即見僮汲
水中取一圓出，大可盈抱，中如水銀滿貯，表里通明。坐者盡起。黄
衣人呼叟共蹴之。蹴起丈餘，光搖搖射人眼。俄而訇然遠起，飛堕舟
中。汪技癢，極力踏去，覺異常輕軟。踏猛似破，騰尋丈，中有漏光
下射如虹，蚩然疾落。又如經天之彗直投水中，滾滾作沸泡聲而滅。
席中共怒曰：“何物生人敗我清興！”叟笑曰：“不惡不惡，此吾家流星
拐也。”白衣人嗔其語戲，怒曰：“都方厭惱，老奴何得作歡？便同小
烏皮捉得狂子來，不然，脛股當有椎吃也！”汪計無所逃，即亦不畏，
捉刀立舟中。倏見僮叟操兵來，汪注視真其父也，疾呼：“阿翁！兒在
此！”叟大駭，相顧淒斷。

僮即反身去。叟曰：“兒急作匿。不然都死矣！”言未已三人忽
已登舟，面皆漆黑，睛大於榴，攫叟出。汪力與奪，搖舟斷纜。汪以
刀截其臂落，黄衣者乃逃。一白衣人奔汪，汪剁其顱，堕水有聲，哄
然俱沒，方謀夜渡，鏇見巨喙出水面深若井，四面湖水奔注，砰砰作
響。俄一噴湧，則浪接星鬥，萬舟簸盪。湖人大恐。舟上有石鼓二皆
重百斤，汪擧一以投，激水雷鳴，浪漸消。又投其一，風波悉平。汪
疑父爲鬼，叟曰：“我固未嚐死也。溺江者十九人，皆爲妖物所食，我
以蹋圓得全。物得罪於錢塘君，故移避洞庭耳。三人魚精，所蹴魚胞
也。”父子聚喜，中夜擊棹而去。天明，見舟中有魚翅徑四五尺許，乃
悟是夜間所斷臂也。
〈商三官〉
故諸葛城有商士禹者，士人也，以醉謔忤邑豪，豪嗾家奴亂捶
之，舁歸而死。禹二子，長曰臣，次曰禮。一女曰三官。三官年十
六，出閣有期，以父故不果。兩兄出訟，終歲不得結。婿家遣人參
母，請從權畢姻事，母將許之。女進曰：“焉有父屍未寒而行吉禮？彼
獨無父母乎？”婿家聞之。漸而止。無何，兩兄訟不得直，負屈歸，擧
家悲憤。兄弟謀留父屍，張再訟之本。三官曰：“人被殺而不理，時事
可知矣。天將爲汝兄弟專生一閻羅包老耶？骨骸暴露，於心何忍
矣。”二兄服其言，乃葬父。葬已，三官夜遁，不知所往。母慚怍，惟
恐婿家知，不敢告族黨，但囑二子冥冥偵察之。幾半年杳不可尋。
會豪誕辰，招優爲戲，優人孫淳擕二弟子往執投。其一王成姿
容平等，而音詞清徹，群讚賞焉。其一李玉貌韶秀如好女，呼令歌，
辭以不稔，強之，所度曲半雜兒女俚謠，合座爲之鼓掌。孫大慚，白
主人：“此子從學未久，隻解行觴耳，幸勿罪責。”即命行酒。玉往來
給奉，善覷主人意向，豪悦之。酒闌人散，留與同寢，玉代豪拂榻解
履，殷勤周至。醉語狎之，但有展笑，豪惑益甚。盡遣諸僕去，獨留
玉。玉伺諸僕去，闔扉下楗焉。諸僕就别室飲。

移時，聞廳事中格格有聲，一僕往覘之，見室内冥黑，寂不聞
聲。行將鏇踵，忽有響聲甚厲，如懸重物而斷其索。亟問之，並無應
者。呼眾排闔入，則主人身首兩斷；玉自經死，繩絕堕地上，梁間頸
際，殘綆儼然。眾大駭，傳告内闥，群集莫解。眾移玉屍於庭，覺其
襪履虛若無足。解之則素舄如鉤，蓋女子也。益駭。呼孫淳詰之，淳
駭極，不知所對，但雲：“玉月前投作弟子，願從壽主人，實不知從
來。”以其服凶，疑是商家刺客。誓以二人邏守之。女貌如生，撫之肢
體溫軟，二人竊謀淫之。一人抱屍轉側，方將緩其結束，忽腦如物
擊，口血暴注，頃刻已死。其一大驚告眾，眾敬若神明焉，且以告
郡。郡官問臣及禮，並言：“不知；但妹亡去已半載矣。”俾往驗視，
果三官。官奇之，判二兄領葬，敕豪家勿仇。
異史氏曰：“家有女豫讓而不知，則兄之爲丈夫者可知矣。然三
官之爲人，即蕭蕭易水，亦將羞而不流，況碌碌與世浮沉者耶！願天
下閨中人，買絲繡之，其功德當不減於奉壯繆也。”
〈於江〉
鄉民於江，父宿田間爲狼所食。江時年十六，得父遺履，悲恨
欲死。夜俟母寢，潛持鐵槌去眠父所，冀報父仇。少間一狼來逡巡嗅
之，江不動。無何，搖尾掃其額，又漸俯首舐其股，江迄不動。既而
歡躍直前，將齕其領。江急以鎚擊狼腦，立斃。起置草中。少間又一
狼來如前狀，又斃之。以至中夜杳無至者。
忽小睡，夢父曰：“殺二物，足泄我恨，然首殺我者其鼻白，此
都非是。”江醒，堅臥以伺之。既明，無所複得。欲曳狼歸，恐驚母，
遂投諸眢井而歸。至夜複往，亦無至者。如此三四夜。忽一狼來齧其
足，曳之以行。行數步，棘刺肉，石傷膚。江若死者，狼乃置之地
上，意將齕腹，江驟起鎚之，僕；又連鎚之，斃。細視之，真白鼻
也。大喜，負之以歸，始告母。母泣從去，探眢井，得二狼焉。

異史氏曰：“農家者流，乃有此英物耶！義烈發於血誠，非直勇
也。智亦異焉。”
〈小二〉
膝邑趙旺夫妻奉佛，不茹葷血，鄉中有“善人”之目。家稱小
有。一女小二絕慧美，趙珍愛之。年六歲，使與兄長春並從師讀，凡
五年而熟五經焉。同窗丁生字紫陌，長於女三歲，文采風流，頗相傾
愛。私以意告母，求婚趙氏。趙期以女字大家，故弗許。
未幾，趙惑於白蓮教，徐鴻儒既反，一家俱陷爲贼。小二知書
善解，凡紙兵豆馬之術一見輒精。小女子師事徐者六人，惟二稱最，
因得盡傳其術。趙以女故，大得委任。時丁年十八，游滕泮矣，而不
肯論婚，意不忘小二也，潛亡去投徐麾下。女見之喜，優禮逾於常
格。女以徐高足主軍務，晝夜出入，父母不得閑。
丁每宵見，嚐斥絕諸役，輒至三漏。丁私告曰：“小生此來，卿
知區區之意否？”女雲：“不知。”丁曰：“我非妄意攀龍，所以故，實
爲卿耳。左道無濟，止取滅亡。卿慧人不念此乎？能從我亡，則寸心
誠不負矣。”女憮然爲間，豁然夢覺，曰：“背親而行不義，請告。”二
人入陳利害，趙不悟，曰：“我師神人，豈有舛錯？”
女知不可諫，乃易髫而髻。出二紙鳶，與丁各跨其一，鳶肅肅
展翼，似鶼鶼之鳥，比翼而飛。質明，抵萊蕪界。女以指拈鳶項，忽
即斂堕，遂收鳶。更以雙衛，馳至山陰里，托爲避亂者，僦屋而居。
二人草草出，嗇於裝，薪儲不給，丁甚憂之。假粟比舍，莫肯貸以升
鬥。女無愁容，但質簪珥。閉門靜對，猜燈謎，憶亡書，以是角低
昂，負者駢二指擊腕臂焉。
西鄰翁姓，綠林之雄也。一日獵歸，女曰：“富以其鄰，我何
憂？暫假千金，其與我乎！”丁以爲難。女曰：“我將使彼樂輸也。”乃
剪紙作判官狀置地下，覆以雞籠。然後握丁登榻，煮藏酒，檢《周

禮》爲觴政，任言是某冊第幾葉第幾行，即共翻閱。其人得食旁、水
旁、酉旁者飲，得酒部者倍之。既而女適得“酒人”，丁以巨觥引滿促
釂。女乃祝曰：“若借得金來，君當得飲部。”丁翻卷，得“鱉人”。女
大笑曰：“事已諧矣！”滴漉授爵。丁不服。女曰：“君是水族，宜作鱉
飲。”方喧競所，聞籠中戛戛，女起曰：“至矣。”啟籠驗視，則布囊中
有巨金累累充溢。丁不勝愕喜。後翁家媼抱兒來戲，竊言：“主人初
歸，篝燈夜坐。地忽暴裂，深不可底。一判官自内出，言：‘我地府司
隸也。太山帝君會諸冥曹，造暴客惡錄，須銀燈千架，架計重十兩。
施百架，則消滅罪愆。’主人駭懼，焚香叩禱，奉以千金。判官荏苒而
入，地亦遂合。”夫妻聽其言，故嘖嘖詫異之。
而從此漸購牛馬，蓄廝婢，自營宅第。里中無賴子窺其富，糾
諸不逞，逾垣劫丁。丁夫婦始自夢中醒，則編菅爇照，寇集滿屋。二
人執丁，又一人探手女懷。女袒而起，戟指而呵曰：“止，止！”盜十
三人皆吐舌呆立，癡若木偶。女始着褲下榻，呼集家人，一一反接其
臂，逼令供吐明悉。乃責之曰：“遠方人埋頭澗穀，冀得相扶持，何不
仁至此！緩急人所時有，窘急者不妨明告，我豈積殖自封者哉？豺狼
之行本合盡誅，但吾所不忍，姑釋去，再犯不宥！”諸盜叩謝而去。居
無何鴻儒就擒，趙夫婦妻子俱被夷誅。生齎金往贖長春之幼子以歸。
兒時三歲，養爲己出，使從姓丁，名之承祧。於是里中人漸知爲白蓮
教戚裔。適蝗害稼，女以紙鳶數百翼放田中，蝗遠避，不入其隴，以
是得無恙。里人共嫉之，群首於官，以爲鴻儒餘黨。官啖其富，肉視
之，收丁；丁以重賂啖令，始得免。
女曰：“貨殖之來也苟，固宜有散亡。然蛇蠍之鄉不可久
居。”因賤售其業而去之，止於益都之西鄙。女爲人靈巧，善居積，經
紀過於男子。嚐開琉璃廠，每進工人而指點之。一切棋燈，其奇式幻
采，諸肆莫能及，以故直昂得速售。居數年財益稱雄。而女督課婢僕
嚴，食指數百無冗口。暇輒與丁烹茗着棋，或觀書史爲樂。錢穀出入
以及婢僕業，凡五日一課，婦自持籌，丁爲之點籍唱名數焉。勤者賞
齎有差，惰者鞭撻罰膝立。是日，給假不夜作，夫妻設餚酒，呼婢輩

度俚曲爲笑。女明察如神，人無敢欺。而賞輒浮於其勞，故事易辦。
村中二百餘家，凡貧者俱量給資本，鄉以此無游惰。值大旱，女令村
人設壇於野，乘輿野出，禹步作法，甘霖傾注，五里内悉穫沾足。人
益神之。女出未嚐障面，村人皆見之，或少年群居，私議其美，及覿
面逢之，俱肅肅無敢仰視者。每秋日，村中童子不能耕作者，授以
錢，使采荼薊，幾二十年，積滿樓屋。人竊非笑之。會山左大饑，人
相食。女乃出菜雜粟贍饑者，近村賴以全活，無逃亡焉。
異史氏曰：“二所爲殆天授，非人力也。然非一言之悟，駢死已
久。由是觀之，世抱非常之才，而誤入匪僻以死者當亦不少，焉知同
學六人中，遂無其人乎？使人恨不爲丁生耳。”
〈庚娘〉
金大用，中州舊家子也。聘尤太守女，字庚娘，麗而賢，逑好
甚敦。以流寇之亂，家人離逖，金擕家南竄。途遇少年，亦偕妻以逃
者，自言廣陵王十八，願爲前驅。金喜，行止與俱。至河上，女隱告
金曰：“勿與少年同舟，彼屢顧我，目動而色變，中叵測也。”金諾
之。王殷勤覓巨舟，代金運裝，劬勞臻至，金不忍卻。又念其擕有少
婦，應亦無他。婦與庚娘同居，意度亦頗溫婉。王坐舡頭上與櫓人傾
語，似甚熟識戚好。
未幾日落，水程迢遞，漫漫不辨南北。金四顧幽險，頗涉疑
怪。頃之，皎月初升，見彌望皆蘆葦。既泊，王邀金父子出戶一豁，
乃乘間擠金入水；金有老父，見之欲號，舟人以篙築之，亦溺；生母
聞聲出窺，又築溺之。王始喊救。母出時，庚娘在後，已微窺之。既
聞一家盡溺，即亦不驚，但哭曰：“翁姑俱沒，我安適歸！”王入
勸：“娘子勿憂，請從我至金陵，家中田廬頗足贍給，保無虞也。”女
收涕曰：“得如此，願亦足矣。”王大悦，給奉良殷。既暮，曳女求
歡，女托體姅，王乃就婦宿。

初更既盡，夫婦喧競，不知何由。但聞婦曰：“若所爲，雷霆恐
碎汝顱矣！”王乃撾婦。婦呼雲：“便死休！誠不願爲殺人贼婦！”王吼
怒，捽婦出。便聞骨董一聲，遂嘩言婦溺矣。未幾抵金陵，導庚娘至
家，登堂見媼，媼訝非故婦。王言：“婦堕水死，新娶此耳。”歸房，
又欲犯。庚娘笑曰：“三十許男子，尚未經人道耶？市兒初合卺亦須一
杯薄漿酒，汝家沃饒，當即不難。清醒相對，是何體段？”王喜，具酒
對酌。庚娘執爵，勸酬殷懇。王漸醉，辭不飲。庚娘引巨碗，強媚勸
之，王不忍拒，又飲之。於是酣醉，裸脱促寢。庚娘撤器滅燭，托言
溲溺，出房，以刀入，暗中以手索王項，王猶捉臂作昵聲。庚娘力切
之，不死，號而起；又揮之，始殪。媼仿佛有聞，趨問之，女亦殺
之。王弟十九覺焉。庚娘知不免，急自刎，刀鈍鈌不可入，啟戶而
奔，十九逐之，已投池中矣。呼告居人，救之已死，色麗如生。共驗
王屍，見窗上一函，開視，則女備述其冤狀。群以爲烈，謀斂資作
殯。天明集視者數千人，見其容皆朝拜之。終日間得金百，於是葬諸
南郊。好事者爲之珠冠袍服，瘞藏豐滿焉。
初，金生之溺也，浮片板上，得不死。將曉至淮上，爲小舟所
救。舟蓋富民尹翁，專設以拯溺者。金既蘇，詣翁申謝。翁優厚之。
留教其子。金以不知親耗，將往探訪，故不決。俄曰：“撈得死叟及
媼。”金疑是父母，奔驗果然。翁代營棺木。生方哀慟，又白：“拯一
溺婦，自言金生其夫。”生揮涕驚出，女子已至，殊非庚娘，乃十八婦
也。向金大哭，請勿相棄。金曰：“我方寸已亂，何暇謀人？”婦益
悲。尹審其故，喜爲天報，勸金納婦。金以居喪爲辭，且將複仇，懼
細弱作累。婦曰：“如君言，脱庚娘猶在，將以報仇居喪去之耶？”翁
以其言善，請暫代收養，金乃許之。蔔葬翁媼，婦缞绖哭泣，如喪翁
姑。
既葬，金懷刃托缽，將赴廣陵，婦止之曰：“妾唐氏，祖居金
陵，與豺子同鄉，前言廣陵者詐也。且江湖水寇，半伊同黨，仇不能
複，隻取禍耳。”金徘徊不知所謀。忽傳女子誅仇事，洋溢河渠，姓名
甚悉。金聞之一快，然益悲，辭婦曰：“幸不污辱。家有烈婦如此，何

忍負心再娶？”婦以業有成說，不肯中離，願自居於媵妾。會有副將軍
袁公，與尹有舊，適將西發，過尹，見生，大相知愛，請爲記室。無
何，流寇犯顺，袁有大勳，金以參機務，叙勞，授游擊以歸。夫婦始
成合卺之禮。
居數日，擕婦詣金陵，將以展庚娘之墓。暫過鎮江，欲登金
山。漾舟中流，欻一艇過，中有一嫗及少婦，怪少婦頗類庚娘。舟疾
過，婦自窗中窺金，神情益肖。驚疑不敢追問，急呼曰：“看群鴨兒飛
上天耶！”少婦聞之。亦呼雲：“饞猧兒欲吃貓子腥耶！”蓋當年閨中之
隱謔也。金大驚，反棹近之，真庚娘。青衣扶過舟，相抱哀哭，傷感
行旅。唐氏以嫡禮見庚娘。庚娘驚問，金始備述其由。庚娘執手
曰：“同舟一話，心常不忘，不圖吳越一家矣。蒙代葬翁姑，所當首
謝，何以此禮相向？”乃以齒序，唐少庚娘一歲，妹之。
先是，庚娘既葬，自不知曆幾春秋。忽一人呼曰：“庚娘，汝夫
不死，尚當重圓。”遂如夢醒。捫之四面皆壁，始悟身死已葬，隻覺悶
悶，亦無所苦。有惡少窺其葬具豐美，發塚破棺，方將蒐括，見庚娘
猶活，相共駭懼。庚娘恐其害己，哀之曰：“幸汝輩來，使我得睹天
日。頭上簪珥，悉將去，願鬻我爲尼，更可少得直。我亦不泄也。”盜
稽首曰：“娘子貞烈，神人共欽。小人輩不過貧乏無計，作此不仁。但
無漏言幸矣。何敢鬻作尼！”庚娘曰：“此我自樂之。”又一盜曰：“鎮
江耿夫人寡而無子，若見娘子必大喜。”庚娘謝之。自拔珠飾悉付盜，
盜不敢受，固與之，乃共拜受。遂載去，至耿夫人家，托言舡風所
迷。耿夫人，巨家，寡媼自度。見庚娘大喜，以爲己出。適母子自金
山歸也，庚娘緬述其故。金乃登舟拜母，母款之若婿。邀至家，留數
日始歸。後往來不絕焉。
異史氏曰：“大變當前，淫者生之，貞者死焉。生者裂人眥，死
者雪人涕耳。至如談笑不驚，手刃仇讎，千古烈丈夫中豈多疋儔哉！
誰謂女子，遂不可比蹤彥雲也？”
〈宮夢弼〉

柳芳華保定人，財雄。一鄉，慷慨好客，座上常百人；急人之
急，千金不靳；賓友假貸常不還。惟一客宮夢弼，陝人，生平無所乞
請，每至輒經歲，詞旨清灑，柳與寢處時最多。柳子名和，時總角，
叔之，宮亦喜與和戲。每和自塾歸，輒與發貼地磚，埋石子偽作埋金
爲笑。屋五架，掘藏幾遍。眾笑其行稚，而和獨悦愛之，尤較諸客
昵。後十餘年家漸虛，不能供多客之求，於是客漸稀，然十數人徹宵
談宴，猶是常也。年既暮，日益落，尚割畝得直以備雞黍。和亦揮
霍，學父結小友，柳不之禁。無何，柳病卒，至無以治凶具。宮乃自
出囊金，爲柳經紀。和益德之，事無大小，悉委宮叔。宮時自外入必
袖瓦礫，至室則抛擲暗陬，更不解其何意。和每對宮憂貧，宮曰：“子
不知作苦之難。無論無金；即授汝千金可立盡也。男子患不自立，何
患貧？”一日辭欲歸，和泣囑速返，宮諾之，遂去。和貧不自給，典質
漸空，日望宮至以爲經理，而宮滅蹟匿影去如黄鶴矣。
先是，柳生時，爲和論親於無極黄氏，素封也，後聞柳貧，陰
有悔心。柳卒訃告之，即亦不弔，猶以道遠曲原之。和服除，母遣自
詣嶽所定婚期，冀黄憐顧。比至，黄聞其衣履敝穿，斥門者不納。寄
語雲：“歸謀百金可複來，不然，請自此絕。”和聞言痛哭。對門劉
媼，憐而進之食，贈錢三百，慰令歸。母亦哀憤無策，因念舊客負欠
者十常八九，俾擇富貴者求助焉。和曰：“昔之交我者爲我財耳，使兒
駟馬高車，假千金亦即匪難。如此景象，誰猶念曩恩，憶故好耶？且
父與人金資，曾無契保，責負亦難憑也。”母固強之，和從教，凡二十
餘日不能致一文。惟優人李四舊受恩恤，聞其事，義贈一金。母子痛
哭，自此絕望矣。
黄女年已及笄，聞父絕和，竊不直之。黄欲女别適，女泣
曰：“柳郎非生而貧者也。使富倍他日，豈仇我者所能奪乎？今貧而棄
之，不仁！”黄不悦，曲諭百端，女終不搖。翁嫗並怒，旦夕唾罵之，
女亦安焉。無何，夜遭寇劫，黄夫婦炮烙幾死，家中席卷一空。荏苒
三載，家益零替。有西賈聞女美，願以五十金致聘。黄利而許之，將
強奪其志。女察知其謀，毁裝塗面，乘夜遁去，丐食於途。閱兩月始

達保定，訪和居址，直造其家。母以爲乞人婦，故咄之，女嗚咽自
陳，母把手泣曰：“兒何形骸至此耶！”女又慘然而告以故，母子俱
哭。便爲盥沐，顏色光澤，眉目煥映，母子俱喜。然家三口，日僅一
啖，母泣曰：“吾母子固應爾；所憐者，負吾賢婦！”女笑慰之曰：“新
婦在乞人中，稔其況味，今日視之，覺有天堂地獄之别。”母爲解頤。
女一日入閑舍中，見斷草叢叢無隙地，漸入内室，塵埃積中，
暗陬有物堆積，蹴之迕足，拾視皆朱提。驚走告和，和同往驗視，則
宮往日所抛瓦礫，盡爲白金。因念兒時，常與瘞石室中，得毋皆金？
而故地已典於東家，急贖歸。斷磚殘缺，所藏石子儼然露焉，頗覺失
望，及發他磚，則燦燦皆白鏹也。頃刻間數巨萬矣。由是贖田產，市
奴僕，門庭華好過昔日。因自奮曰：“若不自立，負我宮叔！”刻志下
帷，三年中鄉選。
乃躬齎白金，往酬劉媼。鮮衣射目，僕十餘輩皆騎怒馬如龍。
媼僅一屋，和便坐榻上。人嘩馬騰，棄溢里巷。黄翁自女失亡，西賈
逼退聘財，業已耗去殆半，售居宅始得償，以故困窘如和曩日。聞舊
婿烜耀，閉戶自傷而已。媼沽酒備饌款和，因述女賢，且惜女遁。問
和：“娶否？”和曰：“娶矣。”食已，強媼往視新婦，載與俱歸。至
家，女華妝出，群婢簇擁若仙。相見大駭，遂叙往舊，殷問父母起
居。居數日，款洽優厚，制好衣，上下一新，始送令返。
媼詣黄許報女耗，兼致存問，夫婦大驚。媼勸往投女，黄有難
色。既而凍餒難堪，不得已如保定。既到門，見閎峻麗，閽人怒目
張，終日不得通，一婦人出，黄溫色卑詞，告以姓氏，求暗達女知。
少間婦出，導入耳舍，曰：“娘子極欲一覲，然恐郎君知，尚候隙也。
翁幾時來此？得毋饑否？”黄因訴所苦。婦人以酒一盛、饌二簋，出置
黄前；又贈五金，曰：“郎君宴房中，娘子恐不得來。明旦宜早去，勿
爲郎聞。”黄諾之。早起趣裝，則管鑰未啟，止於門中，坐袱囊以待。
忽嘩主人出，黄將斂避，和已睹之，怪問誰何，家人悉無以應。和怒
曰：“是必奸宄！可執赴有司。”眾應聲出，短綆繃系樹間，黄慚懼不

知置詞。未幾昨夕婦出，跪曰：“是某舅氏。以前夕來晚，故未告主
人。”和命釋縛。
婦送出門，曰：“忘囑門者，遂致參差。娘子言：相思時可使老
夫人偽爲賣花者，同劉媼來。”黄諾，歸述於嫗。嫗念女若渴，以告劉
媼，媼果與俱至和家，凡啟十餘關，始達女所。女着帔頂髻，珠翠綺
絝，散香氣撲人。嚶嚀一聲，大小婢媼奔入滿側，移金椅床，置雙夾
膝。慧婢瀹茗，各以隱語道寒暄，相視淚熒。至晚除室安二媼，裀褥
溫軟，並昔年富時所未經。居三五日，女意殷渥。媼輒引空處，泣白
前非。女曰：“我子母有何過不忘？但郎忿不解，防他聞也。”每和
至，便走匿。一日方促膝，和遽入，見之，怒詬曰：“何物村嫗，敢引
身與娘子接坐！宜撮鬢毛令盡！”劉媼急進曰：“此老身瓜葛，王嫂賣
花者，幸勿罪責。”和乃上手謝過。即坐曰：“姥來數日，我大忙，未
得展叙。黄家老畜產尚在否？”笑雲：“都佳，但是貧不可過。官人大
富貴，何不一念翁婿情也？”和擊桌曰：“曩年非姥憐賜一甌粥，更何
得鏇鄉土！今欲得而寢處之，何念焉！”言致忿際，輒頓足起罵。女恚
曰：“彼即不仁，是我父母，我迢迢遠來，手皴瘃，足趾皆穿，亦自謂
無負郎君。何乃對子罵父，使人難堪？”和始斂怒，起身去。黄嫗愧喪
無色，辭欲歸，女以二十金私付之。
既歸，曠絕音問，女深以爲念。和乃遣人招之，夫妻至，慚作
無以自容。和謝曰：“舊歲辱臨，又不明告，遂是開罪良多。”黄但唯
唯。和爲更易衣履。留月餘，黄心終不自安，數告歸。和遺白金百
兩，曰：“西賈五十金，我今倍之。”黄汗顏受之。和以輿馬送還，暮
歲稱小豐焉。
異史氏曰：“雍門泣後，朱履杳然，令人憤氣杜門，不欲複交一
客。然良朋葬骨，化石成金，不可謂非慷慨好客之報也。閨中人坐享
高奉，儼然如嬪嬙，非貞異如黄卿，孰克當此而無愧者乎？造物之不
妄降福澤也如是。”

鄉有富者，居積取盈，蒐算入骨。窖鏹數百，惟恐人知，故衣
敗絮。啖糠秕以示貧。親友偶來，亦曾無作雞黍之事。或言其家不
貧，便逋目作怒，其仇如不共戴天。暮年，日餐榆屑一升，臂上皮摺
垂一寸長，而所窖終不肯發。後漸尪羸。瀕死，兩子環問之，猶未遽
告；迨覺果危急，欲告子，子至，已舌蹇不能聲，惟爬抓心頭，呵呵
而已。死後，子孫不能具棺木，遂藁葬焉。嗚呼！若窖金而以爲富，
則大帑數千萬，何不可指爲我有哉？愚已！
〈鴝鵒〉
王汾濱言：其鄉有養八哥者，教以語言，甚狎習，出游必與之
俱，相將數年矣。一日將過絳州，去家尚遠，而資斧已罄，其人愁苦
無策。鳥雲：“何不售我？送我王邸，當得善價，不愁歸路無資
也。”其人雲：“我安忍。”鳥言：“不妨。主人得價疾行，待我城西二
十里大樹下。”其人從之。
擕至城，相問答，觀者漸眾。有中貴見之，聞諸王。王召入，
欲買之。其人曰：“小人相依爲命，不願賣。”王問鳥：“汝願住
否？”言：“願住。”王喜，鳥又言：“給價十金，勿多予。”王益喜，立
畀十金，其人故作懊悔狀而去。王與鳥言，應對便捷。呼肉啖之。食
已，鳥曰：“臣要浴。”王命金盆貯水，開籠令浴。浴已，飛檐間，梳
翎抖羽，尚與王喋喋不休。頃之羽燥。翩躚而起，操晉音曰：“臣去
呀！”顧盼已失所在。王及内侍仰面咨嗟，急覓其人則已渺矣。後有往
秦中者，見其人擕鳥在西安市上。此畢載積先生記。
〈劉海石〉
劉海石，蒲台人，避亂於濱州。時十四歲，與濱州生劉滄客同
函丈，因相善，訂爲昆季。無何，海石失怙恃，奉喪而歸，音問遂
闕。滄客家頗裕，年四十，生二子，長子吉，十七歲，爲邑名士，次
子亦慧。滄客又内邑中倪氏女，大嬖之。後半年長子患腦痛卒，夫妻

大慘。無幾何妻病又卒，逾數月長媳又死，而婢僕之喪亡且相繼也。
滄客哀悼，殆不能堪。
一日方坐愁間，忽閽人通海石至。滄客喜，急出門迎以入。方
欲展寒溫，海石忽驚曰：“兄有滅門之禍不知耶？”滄客愕然，莫解所
以。海石曰：“久失聞問，竊疑近況，未必佳也。”滄客泫然，因以狀
對，海石欷歔，既而笑曰：“災殃未艾，餘初爲兄弔也。然幸而遇僕，
請爲兄賀。”滄客曰：“久不晤，豈近精‘越人術’耶？”海石曰：“是非所
長。陽宅風鑒，頗能習之。”滄客喜，便求相宅。導海石入，内外遍觀
之，已而請睹諸眷口。滄客從其教，使子媳婢妾俱見於堂，滄客一一
指示。
至倪，海石仰天而視，大笑不已。眾方驚疑，但見倪女戰栗無
色，身暴縮短僅二尺餘。海石以界方擊其首，作石缶聲。海石揪其發
檢腦後，見白發數莖，欲拔之，女縮項跪啼，言即去，但求勿拔。海
石怒曰：“汝凶心尚未死耶？”就項後拔去之。女隨手而變，黑色如
狸。眾大駭，海石掇納袖中，顧子婦曰：“媳受毒已深，背上當有異，
請驗之。”婦羞，不肯袒示。劉子固強之，見背上白毛長四指許。海石
以針挑去，曰：“此毛已老，七日即不可救。”又顧劉次子，亦有毛才
二指。曰：“似此可月餘死耳。”滄客以及婢僕並刺之。曰：“僕適不
來，一門無噍類矣。”問：“此何物？”曰：“亦狐屬。吸人神氣以爲
靈，最利人死。”滄客曰：“久不見君，何能神異如此！無乃仙乎？”笑
曰：“特從師習小技耳，何遽雲仙。”問其師，答雲：“山石道人。適此
物，我不能死之，將歸獻俘於師。”言已告别。覺袖中空空，駭
曰：“亡之矣！尾末有大毛未去，今已遁去。”眾俱駭然。海石曰：“領
毛已盡，不能作人，止能化獸，遁當不遠。”於是入室而相其貓，出門
而嗾其犬，皆曰無之。啟圈笑曰：“在此矣。”滄客視之多一豕，聞海
石笑，遂伏不敢少動。提耳捉出，視尾上白毛一莖，硬如針。方將檢
拔，而豕轉側哀鳴，不聽拔。海石曰：“汝造孽既多，拔一毛猶不肯
耶？”執而拔之，隨手複化爲狸。納袖欲出，滄客苦留，乃爲一飯。問

後會，曰：“此難預定。我師立願宏深，常使我等遨世上，拔救眾生，
未必無再見時。”
及别後，細思其名，始悟曰：“海石殆仙矣！‘山石’合一‘岩’字，
蓋呂祖諱也。”
〈諭鬼〉
青州石尚書茂華爲諸生時，郡門外有大淵，不雨亦不涸。邑中
穫大寇數十名，刑於淵上。鬼聚爲祟，經過者輒曳入。一日，有某甲
正遭困厄，忽聞群鬼惶竄曰：“石尚書至矣！”未幾公至，甲以狀告。
公以堊灰題壁示雲：“石某爲禁約事：照得厥念無良，致嬰雷霆之怒；
所謀不軌，遂遭斧鉞之誅。隻宜返罔兩之心，爭相懺悔；庶幾洗髑髏
之血，脱此沉淪。爾乃生已極刑，死猶聚惡。跳踉而至，披發成群；
躑躅以前，搏膺作厲。黄泥塞耳，輒逞鬼子之凶；白晝爲妖，幾斷行
人之路！彼丘陵三尺外，管轄由人；豈乾坤兩大中，凶頑任爾？諭後
各宜潛蹤，勿猶怙惡。無定河邊之骨，靜待輪回；金閨夢里之魂，還
踐鄉土。如蹈前愆，必貽後悔！”自此鬼患遂絕，淵亦尋幹。
〈泥鬼〉
餘鄉唐太史濟武，數歲時，有表親某相擕戲寺中。太史童年磊
落，膽即最豪，見廡中泥鬼睜琉璃眼，甚光而巨，愛之，陰以指抉
取，懷之而歸。既抵家，某暴病不語；移時忽起，厲聲曰：“何故掘吾
睛！”噪叫不休。眾莫之知，太史始言所作。家人乃祝曰：“童子無
知，戲傷尊目，行奉還也。”乃大言曰：“如此，我便當去。”言訖僕地
遂絕，良久而蘇。問其所言，茫不自覺。乃送睛仍安鬼眶中。
異史氏曰：“登堂索睛，土偶何其靈也。顧太史抉睛，而何以遷
怒於同游？蓋以玉堂之貴，而且至性觥觥，觀其上書北闕，拂袖南
山，神且憚之，而況鬼乎？”

〈夢別〉
王春李先生之祖，與先叔祖玉田公交最好。一夜夢公至其家，
黯然相語。問：“何來？”曰：“僕將長往，故與君來别耳。”問：“何
之？”曰：“遠矣。”遂出。送至穀中，見石壁有裂罅，便拱手作别，以
背向罅，逡巡倒行而入，呼之不應，因而驚寐。及明以告太公敬一，
且使備弔具，曰：“玉田公捐舍矣！”太公請先探之，信而後弔之。不
聽，竟以素服往，至門則提幡掛矣。嗚呼！古人於友，其死生相信如
此，喪輿待巨卿而行，豈妄哉！
〈犬燈〉
韓光祿大千之僕夜宿廈間，見樓上有燈如明星，未幾，熒熒飄
落，及地化爲犬。睨之，轉舍後去，急起潛尾之，入院中化爲女子。
心知其狐，還臥故所。俄女子自後來，僕佯寐以觀其變。女俯而撼
之，僕偽作醒狀，問其爲誰，女不答。僕曰：“樓上燈光非子也
耶？”女曰：“既知之，何問焉？”遂共宿之。晝别宵會以爲常。
主人知之，使二人夾僕臥，二人既醒，則身臥床下，亦不覺堕
自何時。主人益怒，謂僕曰：“來時，當捉之來；不然則有鞭楚！”僕
不敢言，諾而退，因念捉之難，不捉懼罪，展轉無策。忽憶女子一小
紅衫密着其體，未肯暫脱，必其要害，執此可以脅之。夜來女至，
問：“主人囑汝捉我乎？”曰：“良有之。但我兩人情好，何肯此
爲？”及寢，陰掬其衫，女急啼，力脱而去。從此遂絕。後僕自他方
歸，遙見女子坐道周，至前則擧袖障面。僕下騎呼曰：“何作此
態？”女乃起握手曰：“我謂子已忘舊好矣。既戀戀有故人意。情尚可
原。前事出於主命，亦不汝怪也。但緣分已盡，今設小酌，請入爲
别。”時秋初，高梁正茂。女擕與俱入，則中有巨第。系馬而入，廳堂
中酒餚已列。甫坐，群婢行炙。日將暮，僕有事欲覆主命，遂别，既
出，則依然田隴耳。
〈番僧〉

釋體空言：在青州見二番僧，像貌奇古，耳綴雙環，被黄布，
須發鬈如羊角，自言從西域來。聞太守重佛，謁之，太守遣二隸送詣
叢林，和尚靈轡不甚禮之。執事者見其人異，私款之，止宿焉。或
問：“西域多異人，羅漢得毋有奇術否？”其一囅然笑，出手於袖，掌
中托小塔，高裁盈尺，玲瓏可愛。壁上最高處，有小龕，僧擲塔其
中，矗然端立，無少偏倚。視塔上有舍利放光，照耀一室。少間以手
招之，仍落掌中。其一僧乃袒臂，伸左肱，長可六七尺，而右肱縮無
有矣；轉伸右肱亦如左狀。
〈狐妾〉
萊蕪劉洞九官汾州，獨坐署中，聞亭外笑語漸近，入室則四女
子：一四十許，一可三十，一二十四五已來，末後一垂髫者，並立幾
前，相視而笑。劉固知官署多狐，置不顧。少間，垂髫者出一紅巾戲
抛面上，劉拾擲窗間，仍不顧。四女一笑而去。
一日年長者來，謂劉曰：“舍妹與君有緣，願無棄葑菲。”劉漫
應之，女遂去。俄偕一婢擁垂髫兒來，俾與劉並肩坐。曰：“一對好鳳
侶，今夜諧花燭。勉事劉郎，我去矣。”劉諦視，光豔無儔，遂與燕
好。詰其行蹟，女曰：“妾固非人，而實人也。妾前官之女，盅於狐，
奄忽以死，窆園内，眾狐以術生我，遂飄然若狐。”劉因以手探尻際，
女覺之笑曰：“君將無謂狐有尾耶？”轉身雲：“請試捫之。”自此，遂
留不去，每行坐與小婢俱，家人俱尊以小君禮。婢媼參謁，賞賚甚
豐。
值劉壽辰，賓客煩多，共三十餘筵，須庖人甚眾；先期牒拘僅
一二到者。劉不勝恚。女知之，便言：“勿憂。庖人既不足用，不如並
其來者遣之。妾固短於才，然三十席亦不難辦。”劉喜，命以魚肉薑椒
悉移内署。家中人但聞刀砧聲繁不絕。門内設以幾，行炙者置柈其
上，轉視則餚俎已滿。托去複來，十餘人絡繹於道，取之不絕。末
後，行炙人來索湯餅。内言曰：“主人未嚐預囑，咄嗟何以辦？”既而
曰：“無已，其假之。”少頃呼取湯餅，視之三十餘碗，蒸騰幾上。客

既去，乃謂劉曰：“可出金資，償某家湯餅。”劉使人將直去。則其家
失湯餅，方共驚疑，使至疑始解。一夕夜酌，偶思山東苦醁，女請取
之。遂出門去，移時返曰：“門外一罌可供數日飲。”劉視之，果得
酒，真家中甕頭春也。
越數日，夫人遣二僕如汾。途中一僕曰：“聞狐夫人犒賞優厚，
此去得賞金，可買一裘。”女在署已知之，向劉曰：“家中人將至。可
恨傖奴無禮，必報之。”僕甫入城，頭大痛，至署，抱首號呼，共擬進
醫藥。劉笑曰：“勿須療，時至當自瘥。”眾疑其穫罪小君。僕自思：
初來未解裝，罪何由得？無所告訴，漫膝行而哀之。簾中語曰：“爾謂
夫人則已耳，何謂狐也？”僕乃悟，叩不已。又曰：“既欲得裘，何得
複無禮？”已而曰：“汝愈矣。”言已，僕病若失。僕拜欲出，忽自簾中
擲一裹出，曰：“此一羔羊裘也，可將去。”僕解視，得五金。劉問家
中消息，僕言都無事，惟夜失藏酒一罌，稽其時日，即取酒夜也。群
憚其神，呼之“聖仙”，劉爲繪小像。
時張道一爲提學使，聞其異，以桑梓誼詣劉，欲乞一面，女拒
之。劉示以像，張強擕而去。歸懸座右，朝夕祝之雲：“以卿麗質，何
之不可？乃托身於髪髪之老！下官殊不惡於洞九，何不一惠顧？”女在
署，忽謂劉曰：“張公無禮，當小懲之。”一日張方祝，似有人以界方
擊額，崩然甚痛。大懼，反卷。劉詰之，使隱其故而詭對。劉笑，
曰：“主人額上得毋痛否？”使不能欺，以實告。
無何婿亓生來，請覲之，女固辭之，亓請之堅。劉曰：“婿非他
人，何拒之深？”女曰：“婿相見，必當有以贈之。渠望我奢，自度不
能滿其志，故適不欲見耳。”既固請之，乃許以十日見。及期亓入，隔
簾揖之，少致存問。儀容隱約，不敢審諦。即退，數步之外輒回眸注
盼。但聞女言曰：“阿婿回首矣！”言已大笑，烈烈如鴞鳴。亓聞之，
脛股皆軟，搖搖然如喪魂魄。既出，坐移時始稍定。乃曰：“適聞笑
聲，如聽霹靂，竟不覺身爲己有。”少頃，婢以女命，贈亓二十金。亓
受之，謂婢曰：“聖仙日與丈人居，寧不知我素性揮霍，不慣使小錢

耶？”女聞之曰：“我固知其然。囊底適罄；向結伴至汴梁，其城爲河
伯占據，庫藏皆沒水中，入水各得些須，何能飽無饜之求？且我縱能
厚饋，彼福薄亦不能任。”
女凡事能先知，遇有疑難與議，無不剖。一日並坐，忽仰天大
驚曰：“大劫將至，爲之奈何！”劉驚問家口，曰：“餘悉無恙，獨二公
子可慮。此處不久將爲戰場，君當求差遠去，庶免於難。”劉從之，乞
於上官，得解餉雲貴間。道里遼遠，聞者弔之，而女獨賀。無何，薑
瓖叛，汾州沒爲贼窟。劉仲子自山東來，適遭其變，遂被其害。城
陷，官僚皆罹幹難，惟劉以公出得免。
盜平，劉始歸。尋以大案桂誤，貧至饔飧不給，而當道者又多
所需索，因而窘憂欲死。女曰：“勿憂，床下三千金，可資用度。”劉
大喜，問：“竊之何處？”曰：“天下無主之物取之不盡，何庸竊
乎！”劉借謀得脱歸，女從之。後數年忽去，紙裹數事留贈，中有喪家
掛門之小幡，長二寸許，群以爲不祥。劉尋卒。
〈雷曹〉
樂雲鶴、夏平子二人，少同里，長同齋，相交莫逆。夏少慧，
十歲知名。樂虛心事之。夏相規不倦；樂文思日進，由是名並著。而
潦倒場屋，戰輒北。無何，夏遘疫而卒，家貧不能葬，樂銳身自任
之。遺繈褓子及未亡人，樂以時恤諸其家，每得升鬥必析而二之，夏
妻子賴以活。於是士大夫益賢樂。樂恒產無多，又代夏生憂内顧，家
計日蹙。乃歎曰：“文如平子尚碌碌以沒，而況於我？人生富貴須及
時，戚戚終歲，恐先狗馬填溝壑，負此生矣，不如早改圖也。”於是去
讀而賈。操業半年，家資小泰。
一日客金陵，休於旅舍，見一人頎然而長，觔骨隆起，彷徨坐
側，色黯淡有戚容。樂問：“欲得食耶？”其人亦不語。樂推食食之，
則以手掬啖，頃刻已盡；樂又益以兼人之饌，食複盡。遂命主人割豚
脅，堆以蒸餅，又盡數人之餐。始果腹而謝曰：“三年以來未嚐如此飫

飽。”樂曰：“君固壯士，何飄泊若此？”曰：“罪嬰天譴，不可說
也。”問其里居，曰：“陸無屋，水無舟，朝村而暮郭也。”樂整裝欲
行，其人相從，戀戀不去。樂辭之，告曰：“君有大難，吾不忍忘一飯
之德。”樂異之，遂與偕行。途中曳與同餐，辭曰：“我終歲僅數餐
耳。”益奇之。次日渡江，風濤暴作，估舟盡覆，樂與其人悉沒江中。
俄風定，其人負樂踏波出，登客舟，又破浪去。少時挽一舟至，扶樂
入，囑樂臥守，複躍入江，以兩臂夾貨出，擲舟中，又入之；數入數
出，列貨滿舟。樂謝曰：“君生我亦良足矣，敢望珠還哉！”檢視貨
財，並無亡失。益喜，驚爲神人，放舟欲行，其人告退，樂苦留之，
遂與共濟。樂笑雲：“此一厄也，止失一金簪耳。”其人欲複尋之。樂
方勸止，已投水中而沒。驚愕良久，忽見含笑而出，以簪授樂曰：“幸
不辱命。”江上人罔不駭異。
樂與歸，寢處共之，每十數日始一食，食則啖嚼無算。一日又
言别，樂固挽之。適晝晦欲雨，聞雷聲。樂曰：“雲間不知何狀？雷又
是何物？安得至天上視之，此疑乃可解。”其人笑曰：“君欲作雲中游
耶？”少時樂倦甚，伏榻假寐。既醒，覺身搖搖然不似榻上，開目則在
雲氣中，周身如絮。驚而起，暈如舟上，踏之軟無地。仰視星鬥，在
眉目間。遂疑是夢。細視星嵌天上如蓮實之在蓬也，大者如甕，次如
瓿，小如盎盂。以手撼之，大者堅不可動，小星搖動似可摘而下者；
遂摘其一藏袖中。撥雲下視，則銀河蒼茫，見城郭如豆。愕然自念：
設一脱足，此身何可複向？俄見二龍夭矯，駕縵車來，尾一掉，如鳴
牛鞭。車上有器，圍皆數丈，貯水滿之。有數十人，以器掬水，遍灑
雲間。忽見樂，共怪之。樂審所與壯士在焉，語眾雲：“是吾友
也。”因取一器授樂令灑。時苦旱，樂接器排雲，遙望故鄉，盡情傾
注。未幾謂樂曰：“我本雷曹，前誤行雨，罰謫三載。今天限已滿，請
從此别。”乃以駕車之繩萬丈擲前，使握端縋下。樂危之；其人笑
言：“不妨。”樂如其言，飀飀然瞬息及地。視之，則堕立村外，繩漸
收入雲中，不可見矣。

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Design Research In Information Systems Alan Hevner Samir Chatterjee

More Related Content

Similar to Design Research In Information Systems Alan Hevner Samir Chatterjee (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Design Research In Information Systems Alan Hevner Samir Chatterjee