Foundations of Science

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 143–148 | Cite as

Steps from Erratic Projects towards Structured Programs in Research

  • Ekkehard Finkeissen


Currently, research is mostly organized in research projects intended to provide results within a limited period of time. Here, small teams of scientists erratically define single scientific studies, write a proposal, and send it to the refereeing board. In case of a funding, the study is carried out and the results are published. To optimize the research and reduce the respective costs and/or raise the outcome, multiple research projects should be organized within a comprehensive research program. A meta-model (paradigm) can help comprise (a) the representation of the state-of-the-art decision knowledge, (b) the adding of new research questions, (c) the performing of trials to answer these questions, and (d) the revision of the current model. It will be discussed how to structure studies within research programs and these within one super-program.


Research projects Research programs Decision modeling Decision Making Decision support systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bertalanffy, L. v. (1950). General system theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1(2).Google Scholar
  2. Bertalanffy L.v. (1974). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. Penguin University Books, Harmondsworth, Middlessex Google Scholar
  3. Booch G. and Rumbaugh J. et al. (1999). UML: The unified modeling language user guide. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass. Google Scholar
  4. Bray, T., Paoli, J., et al. (1998). Extensible Markup Language (XML), W3C Recommentations.Google Scholar
  5. Eddy D.M. (1994). Clinical decision making: From theory to practice. Principles for making difficult decisions in difficult times. Jama 271(22): 1792–1798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finkeissen E. (2002). Combining strategy and sub-models for the objectified communication of research programs. In: Magnani, L., Nersessian, N. and Pizzi, C. (eds) Logical and computational aspects of model-based reasoning (Vol. 25), pp 313–330. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  7. Finkeissen E. and Bohret S. et al. (2002a). AIDA: Web agents to support dental treatment planning. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry 5(2–3): 133–138 Google Scholar
  8. Finkeissen, E., Fuchs, H., et al. (2002b). medrapid—Aktuelles medizinisches Fachwissen auf Knopfdruck. Telemedizinführer Deutschland 2003, pp. 154–157.Google Scholar
  9. Finkeissen E. and Weber R. et al. (2002c). AIDA—experiences in compensating the mutual weaknesses of knowledge-based and object-oriented development in a complex dental planning domain. Methods of Information in Medicine 41(2): 168–176 Google Scholar
  10. Kuhn T.S. (1979). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  11. Lakatos I. (1974). Falsifikation und die Methodologie wissenschaftlicher Forschungsprogramme. In: Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds) Kritik und Erkenntnisfortschritt, pp 89–189. Vieweg, Wiesbaden Braunschweig Google Scholar
  12. Quatrani T. (1998). Visual modeling with rational rose and UML. Addison Wesley, Harlow, England Google Scholar
  13. Stachowiak H. (1973). Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Springer, Wien Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Informatics, Institute for Medical Biometry and InformaticsUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations