There has been a growing interest in information systems (IS) research as design research. One popular methodology is Action Design Research (ADR). Despite the popularity, ADR lacks proper evaluation based on primary data. We claim that the existing empirical evidence justifying ADR is either fragmented or based on reconstructions of prior studies conducted for other purposes. Our claim is supported by the authors of ADR who state that “ … because the VIP project was not conducted explicitly as ADR, it cannot be viewed as an exemplar of its application”. The purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence. Examples of empirical evidence show that ADR is highly relevant for an applied discipline such as IS, it creates a bridge between user-oriented perspectives of the IT artefact and technological perspectives and it supports a conceptual movement from a specific instance to a search for a class of problems.