Artifact Validity in Design Science Research (DSR): A Comparative Analysis of Three Influential Frameworks

TL;DR

This paper compares three influential DSR frameworks to evaluate how well they support artifact validity, highlighting gaps and proposing a revised framework to enhance artifact evaluation rigor.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of three DSR frameworks regarding artifact validity and introduces a revised framework covering all five validity types.

Findings

Purpose validity is explicitly emphasized in all frameworks.

Instrument and design validity are the least developed aspects.

The absence of mandatory instrument validity can lead to invalid artifacts.

Abstract

Although the methodology of Design Science Research (DSR) is playing an increasingly important role with the emergence of the "sciences of the artificial", the validity of the resulting artifacts is occasionally questioned. This paper compares three influential DSR frameworks to assess their support for artifact validity. Using five essential validity types (instrument validity, technical validity, design validity, purpose validity and generalization), the qualitative analysis reveals that while purpose validity is explicitly emphasized, instrument and design validity remain the least developed. Their implicit treatment in all frameworks poses a risk of overlooked validation, and the absence of mandatory instrument validity can lead to invalid artifacts, threatening research credibility. Beyond these findings, the paper contributes (a) a comparative overview of each framework's strengths and weaknesses and (b) a revised DSR framework incorporating all five validity types with definitions and examples. This ensures systematic artifact evaluation and improvement, reinforcing the rigor of DSR.