This is another example of information that I would categorize as "a given". One of the things that is useful for the marketing researcher from this study is understanding the magnitude of how much factors like mindshare, market share, and trailability affect sales and user preference. I don't think it is a surprise to anyone that popular software platforms can demand a higher price than up and comers. Though the study says this is helpful to practitioners, I would disagree. The question for marketing professionals are things such as: 1.) How much of a premium can be tolerated before they begin to lose market share to their more aggressive, lower cost competitor start eating away at their market share; 2.) What strategies can the new entrants into this market use to unseat the market leaders from their position. This type of research doesn't give them a lot of direction in these regards.

What was particularly interesting to me was the late delivery of this research. Why would MISQ accept a study based on data that was so old? In addition, there is the perspective of the timeframes. 1996 and 1997 were relatively early in the development of web servers. The World Wide Web was the impetus that put server software on the map, and that really only began to gain public recognition in 1993. This study was published after the Y2K and Dot-com Bubble burst, yet there is no reference to extreme surge in the server market that occurred between 1996-December 2002 when this study was published; very peculiar.

Wow, I got so caught up in my paper this week I forgot about my normal journal entries. Oops.

I have had an interesting experience with research databases over the last couple weeks. I have noticed that some of the databases that claim to have IT articles in them rarley return material that is truly IT related. Now I temper this opinion with the possibility that the items I am looking for may have low relevence to the material in these particular DBs. Perhaps when searching for other items these same references could be more useful. We shall see.

I wonder also if anyone has insight into using wildcards in these databases? I tried to use some of the wildcards I have used in other DBs, but I was not very successful.

I remembered that I had a couple documents that may be helpful to all of you. Some of you may have seen them before. The first is an article by Lee on reviewing manuscipts and the other is a summary document with many different sources listed in it.

I have posted both documents in WFS account so that you can download them: http://wfs.cgu.edu/xythoswfs/webui/babineat

 I hope they are useful to you.

Albert and his colleagues have now given the class an example of both the case study and design science technique in one east reference. I appreciated ths article following onto the Hevner article, as it seems that the previous articles did not link into one and other.

I appreciated the structure and explanation of their process. One of the issues I think we have as researchers is developing the structure around our research topic. This is a real opportunity to degrade the findings of our research as well as our credibility. I find myself reading article such as this thinking, "these authors have spent a good deal of time and energy making sure they have covered every base."

Hevner’s descriptive article on design research seems very thorough, with both a historical and transdisciplinary perspective. I appreciated the discussion on the seven guidelines, particularly #6 – Design as a Search Process. I am starting to feel like I am getting more and more pieces of the puzzle. Design research that utilizes empirical methods with behavioral theories seems to be the most interesting to me at the moment. Now for the subject of that thesis!

The material on style was also thought provoking for me (bottom of page 86 to the top of page 87). Style to me, especially when writing, evokes thoughts of individuality and using your creativity. Thought leadership is the popular buzzword in the business world. How can we as IT researchers provide thought leadership within the constraints of our scientific community, and then prove it? Or, could it be the other way around?

I am going to start a more thorough investigation of ITIL, but I wanted to know if any of you have run into ITIL in your educational or professional endeavors. What was the context? Do you see this type of standardization as a help or a hindrance to our research? Do you feel this type of resource reduces the value that our education gives us (even slightly) and/or the value of the research from the IT educational community at large? I look forward to your input.

I am going to start a more thorough investigation of ITIL, but I wanted to know if any of you have run into ITIL in your educational or professional endeavors. What was the context? Do you see this type of standardization as a help or a hindrance to our research? Do you feel this type of resource reduces the value that our education gives us (even slightly) and/or the value of the research from the IT educational community at large? I look forward to your input.