The Gregor & Jones (2007) paper identifies eight different components of design theories in an attempt to specify such theories, making them collectively more amenable to being communicated, justified, and developed. In doing so the authors extend the work of Walls et al. (1992) on information systems design theories (ISDTs). Although the authors made considerable progress in ameliorating the Walls et al. model one piece of critism could be that they tried to make a contribution partly through adopting the notion of “units” from Dubin (1978), hence introducing “constructs” as a new component added to the Wald et al. model they ended up further complicating the previous model since one of the idiosyncrasies of design theories (of IS) is that a single construct can stand for a subsystem that has a design theory of its own. This observation if considered valid, defeats one of their primary purposes, i.e. simplifying the original model, and might well be the reason why the developers of the initial model decided to drop this component in the first place.
Mandviwalla (2015) contributes to design science research (DSR) literature by proposing the required steps on “how” to generate theories and practical insights in DSR. This study employs an interesting approach similar to that of agile project management and ingrains an iterative element in most of its proposed structures and processes. A potential paradoxical result, which could be regarded as a derivative of this study, is that using existing artifacts is claimed to allow the researcher to leverage previous work and more precisely focus on the design properties and corresponding design theory that are new and interesting, but even with the exponential growth in the creation of these novel artifacts, given today’s unprecedented technological capacities, we’re not seeing an increasing number of design theories.