Information systems as an artefact-oriented discipline require a strong interaction between researchers, developers and users regarding design of, development of, and the study of the use of digital artefacts in social settings. During recent years, performing research in a design science research spirit has gained increasing interest. In larger scale design research endeavours, access to systems development capabilities becomes necessary. Such a unit, InnovationLab, was established in 2006 in a university setting in Sweden. In this paper we are investigating the 5 years experience of running this InnovationLab. Our findings point to an innovation lab being valuable for research in general and especially for design science research. However, in order to balance the business of an innovation lab, it will be necessary to provide services for other stakeholders (such as administrative units, teachers, and students) as a means for developing systems development capability aimed at supporting researchers.

The purpose of this paper is to challenge some of the cornerstones of the grounded theory approach and propose an extended and alternative approach for data analysis and theory development, which the authors call multi-grounded theory (MGT). A multi-grounded theory is not only empirically grounded; it is also grounded in other ways. Three different grounding processes are acknowledged: theoretical, empirical, and internal grounding. The authors go beyond the pure inductivist approach in GT and add the explicit use of external theories. A working procedure of theory development in MGT is presented, which can be seen as an extension of the grounded theory approach.

Today we are primarily using computers for communication. We communicate via computers as professionals and at our spare time. One growing context of computer use is when we as citizens communicating with authorities. This paper suggests communication criteria for evaluation of public e- services. The suggested criteria are derived from a communication perspective and applied in a case study for evaluation of an e-service. Communication between authorities and citizens are often communication intensive and consequently conditions and consequences of communication should be evaluated. The aim of the suggested communication criteria is to be a complement to established traditional usability criteria.

The aim of this research is to suggest a method for collective competence development among IT-consultants. IT-consultants are involved in many challenging situations. They need to manage different organisational,semantic and technical issues. Managing this complexity requires a variety of competences. Examples of competences needed are business development,project management and information system development. The competence developed is often individually based. Due to the competition between consultancy firms it is not sufficient with an individually based consult competence; rather the IT-consultants have to carry joint work procedures of the organisation. A consultancy firm possessing a high organisational competence is selling more than working hours; they are selling a reflected development approach. The competence of the IT-consultants is decisive concerning the outcome in the clients’ organisations. The reasons for suggesting a reflective and structured approach for collective competence development are: 1) many IT-consultants are exchange experiences only hastily and at random. This means an ad hoc development of joint competencies. 2) IT-consultants often collaborate with clients rather than withother IT-consultants. If the IT-consultant is the only representative from the IT-organisation the interaction with other consultants is limited. The character of the IT-consultants’ work situation means that there is a risk that the competencies resides only on an individual level and that they will not be properly transferred to the collective and organisational level. We have been inspired by theories such as: experiential learning, organisational learning,knowledge-in-action and storytelling. The method development has been based on empirical data from two IT-consultancy firms. The main message of the paper is to argue for the need of a structured collective competence development process and that it is not sufficient to rely on sporadic and occasional knowledge exchange.

This paper is about the knowledge transferring between IT-consultants. IT-consultants are involved in many complex and challenging situations. They need to manage organisational, semantic and technical issues. Managing this complexity requires a high and a variety of competences. Examples of competences needed are business development, project management, information system development methods and techniques. An IT-consultant often makes continuous movements between different assignments and clients. The competence developed is often individually based. Individually based knowledge is not sufficient since the IT-consultants have to carry organisational working procedures. Furthermore, the competence needed is not static; it is something that should evolve dynamically. In this paper we are proposing a collective competence development approach. The collective competence development approach consists of a process model and a conceptual model. The aim of both these models is to make individual based knowledge as subject to collective reflection.

This paper is challenging the usability of traditional usability guidelines. The claim is that guideline descriptions and explanations are not satisfactory. Analysis results demonstrate vagueness and are ambiguous in explanation. The aim of the paper is to propose a set of principles (meta-guidelines) to be used for improving the usability of guidelines.

The design and evaluation of IT-systems are usually supported by different usability criteria. Our hypothesis is that criteria are predominantly formulated as supporting interaction between a user and an IT-system. We are claiming that there is a need for criteria formulated at higher levels such as communication and business processes. One example of a criterion formulated at the interaction level is "Visibility of system status" and one example of a criterion formulated at the business process level is "Quality of work". If criteria is formulated and used on the interaction level only, the impact on design and evaluation can only take place at this level. This choice will also mean that you are only able to speculate whether the IT-system is supporting higher levels. We are not saying that criteria belonging to the interaction level are unimportant; rather we are saying that there is a need for formulating complementing criteria that resides on the communication and business process level.