1. Gaining Internet Content – Perspective of an Average User in Sciences’
Content (Management)
Abstract
This paper just was realised as a reaction to an unexpected e-mail (that even found its way into
spam-mail) by AMSE that has definitely failed correct addressing. My thinking was: if it is that
difficult to create a correct sender – addressee-relation via e-mail I should write some short
statement as an average user of how the same situation of addressee-irrelevant occurs whenever one
is “googleing” for specific daily information and culture-studies’ related papers. As having been
working in the practical field of international science management of sciences, and having found
one specific necessary in offline management, but practically possibly transferable into search-
engine environment in order to gain more precise output related to what one is searching for when
contents (and aims) – an exception is if aims only are searched for -, I decided to tell why I have
come to the conclusion of how and why search results should be made more visibly and categorised
from the users’ point of view as visible and easily identifiable output of the huge masses of search
results usually provided. My idea is the one of showing the search results in automatically as well
as user defined categorised modules similar to file orders one just needs to click in to see a list with
author names, discipline and paper title in order to facilitate scientific work with online material.
Key words: User friendliness of scientific papers search results, Modular visibility of search results,
contextual reading
Introduction
The main reason why I decided to write a short paper about something I am no professional about
in its technical background - as the supposed addresses should (?) be located in the IT engineering
area and its management the cultural scientist just wonders about the not-precise spreading of
information and believes in inadequate (automotive) programming laying behind even of something
as simple as an automatically created e-mail list is thought to be, and just can “excuse” this fact as
the mail is correctly put into the spam order immediately after having come in; no, there is another
discrepancy to be found after the spam has caught my interest, and it is that on the homepage, the
title of the conference is declared as Advances in Management Science and Engineering (being
even part of the acronym AMSE, and in the subtitles of possible content defined as Management
Engineering and Information Engineering, and other related topics (whatever can be understood
under this kind of generalisation)-, but in its average usage, only, lays exactly in the matter of fact
that the internet itself and its huge amount of more or less interesting available content do not seem
to be able to gain some precise and focused output on contents (as it even cannot do so with e-mail
addresses) that could be interlinked beforehand in order to provide due to preselected con- and
inter-textual information the highest efficiency quota possible for appropriate focused usage and
time management. As consequence the paper might be acceptable in ways of open thinking in
relation to the overall picture, or not in the relation of expected technical details and formulas
focused by the committee.
Therefore I have put once again an eye on what the IT (and probably marketing etc.-)
specialist believes to be user-friendly in defining the final criteria of which documents should be
shown in what order and which criteria are set by those who had provided the material, and have
started rethinking of what I would have liked to have available as complementary tools to be able to
work much more efficiently in content categorisation, selection, innovation as basis and
consequence out of the variety of input, and mostly desired in time, as internet still is in some sense
more a time killer than a time saver (in senses no time manager-tool can solve).

2. It is the Internet that is ineffective in the search results provided. I am not interested in what
the technician seems to be interested in: a huge quantity out of something that even does not full-fill
all the search criteria I had thought about before entering them, just to be able to tell me that the
complete search and its “vomiting output” just needed some seconds. The search yes, my looking
through titles of documents etc. needs mostly more time than focused offline-work that in its usage
applied on internet needs about the same time because one knows exactly name, title etc. and is
feeding the internet with the correct result one is knowing about its existence already. To me
internet-search should be able to provide more (inter-communicative technical) quality than
quantity wherefore I often would be happy if all the search criteria were full-filled, or those
documents, which do not full-fill them were not shown at all in the listings.
My approach of thinking comes from three perspectives:
1. Internet-search-usage – mainly on culture scientific issues as books, scientific papers,
related material, general thinking-perspectives in specific topics etc.;
2. International science and scientific (project-) management;
3. Human thinking in obtaining useful information in comparison to something already known.
I have developed my idea of how I would like to work in sequences that base in online and offline
procedures of management of content and human sources along with the main applications of
(mainly offline) project management I consider to be important in order to facilitate contextual
(online) work.
I start with the status quo I encounter daily when “googleing” with more or less precise search
criteria, lead to my experience of managing sciences in an international and intercultural
environment in one specific point, and its applications and limitations as well as requirements in
offline and / or online communication, touch thinking via creativity – this others have done already
much better in a specialised manner than I can do in details here; furthermore space is too limited to
go into details and focus on (neurological) schools of thinking attitudes and functions, and finally
present a kind of project management evolution on how text-content – according to needs pictures,
maps, music etc. can be included as well - could be worked with in applicative mode by the user as
probably inspirational scenario to the one or other IT specialist who liked to deal with the topic.
Daily “googleing” (and “angriness”)
Search engines are great. Yes, they really are. I can enter some key words and most of the searches
found are inappropriate for usage – at least at first sight (and mostly at second sight, too); often
even those that are scientific ones. Furthermore I need quite a lot of time in looking the search
results superficially through in comparison to the later output gained. How does it come? The
various search engines pretend to work on criteria the user does give. There is the relevance of key
words and languages that I can select out of my personal knowledge or the knowledge that there
might be a specialist on something I am interested in somewhere and I am not aware of him or her–
this is quite probable as the world is huge and thanks to God not everybody publishing in English,
wherefore even in bibliographical issues, be it offline or online, mainly culture plus individual as
well as (theoretical) school matters.
Scientific papers mostly are available as pdf-files and can run under the “head” of a
university or education mark that itself once again is part of national cultures. Nevertheless the
output rarely is satisfactory. Neither in its categorisation as number one on page one out of to just
give a number 1,383000 search results – even the “low” number of 120,000 search results cannot be
considered as more efficient and successful in finding useful material – nor as one of the last listed
documents on page something. There might be some interesting paper – somewhere. It needs to be
found, and read. Just after having read it I can know whether it is really useful or not. It does not
matter whether I read it thoroughly or not, I need some time in order to decide about the usefulness
and usage. And this time unfortunately in most cases is less than the time needed to find the
document out of the whole “searches’-found-list”.

3. With books it might be different. Less of them are available just like that as pdf or epub etc. in the
listings. Books are mainly visible part of dominant players such as amazon. And amazon does
nearly the same as search engines do. It works with key words and pretends similarly to “google”
search-engine suggestions what I could be interested in apart of what I had originally looking for.
The problem is: amazon considers what I had bought before and what other users have bought when
they had bought an overlapping quantity – this quantity starts from one same-book-buying and
usually does not get more correct in my subjective opinion to my immediate needs I had bought
book x for just because the overlapping quantity is much higher. The (professional) background of
interest and the usage as well as the application in form of “just” reading, professional usage and its
reception etc. might differ too much that the suggested books are of any use. One can (or could)
ignore the suggestions – the one related to the search that lead to the buying of book x were either
very precise by having entered just the title, and / or author’s name, or that general in its
specification that one has already gained an overview on what is available on the book market on
the topics based on my search criteria. The same with the great innovation of the “google-
contextual”-tool of giving suggestions of what I might be interested in just because I have written x
e-mails with the content a and had x (saved) searches with the content b. Again the programme
pretends to read my needs. It cannot do so – it just works on key words instead of on real contextual
reading, syntax, grammar, semantics, human relationships in written (e-mail) form, cultural statistic
quantities that might play a part etc. and linked connotation of whatever is part of my internet- and
desktop- etc. life of my computer what would make the source much more useful, even though it
still would need to create future by (my personal) history and individual identity, wherefore the
output still would be very scarce related to what future might be due to personal changes, new
priority settings, innovations of others brought into discussion or even realisation what might lead
to contextual new settings etc.
It might be similar seen to the question whether management is an art or a science. Where
does the difference really can be found in? Not necessarily in the result itself, as the medium is just
the medium to transport content that is going to be interpreted according to (historic) consciously
and unconsciously recallable knowledge and aims that cannot become generalised but
individualised, only. I even consider that the approach on side of the “facilitator” should be, in case
one likes to think in science vs. arts instead of in science contains, or even is a kind of arts at the
same time, an approach of arts and creativity instead of “obvious yes – no – operations” that lead to
some result. Where there is the difference in the approach or definition of management being
science vs. art:
Comparison between science and art (as in Veerabhadrappa Havinal, p. 23)
Science Art
Advances by knowledge Advances by policies
Process Feels
Predicts Guesses
Defines Describes
Measures Opines
Impresses Expresses
If one would think just in the tightest terms of project management one could play off knowledge
against policies; if one instead thinks abstractive on (visual) arts of any sort what I consider to be
most appropriate in the whole context as internet, computer surfaces etc. are visually designed
outputs of technically based inputs, one could define those policies as intention to lead to
interpretation, open-minded thinking, innovation, more or less conscious simulation of oneself as
human being in accordance, comparison or negation of the picture provided as basis for
development of any sort. Arts have the abstract policy to make knowledge visible by asking the user
to interact immediately with own knowledge and own individual personality. It enforces more

4. deepness by getting into the topic of what one does not know and where to become better as human
individual. It is not something already inflexibly given instead it is something that leads to
differentiated usage of knowledge. Knowledge is needed to gain a higher output for development
and innovation.
The difference to science is that the knowledge is not explicitly given as a result that impresses (and
therefore puts some kind of pressure of conformation in order to act in an expected and correct
manner that believes to be transparent due to regulative norms that define steps and output and
pretend to be applicable on everything following defined parameters), instead it expresses oneself
(through somebody) and therefore lacks the oppression that always is more or less part of the
impression. This oppression is substituted by something that can be called empathy as one is forced
to deal much more with the counterpart in an interaction instead of a kind of dominant setting put
above. This is always meant in the abstract mode towards knowledge and content and the
interaction of thinking and finding solutions instead of having already the solutions presented, and
not in the predominant relation to the human being standing behind of it (even though it might be
constructive to know at least something about main ideas, schools of thinking, biography etc.).
What does “feel” implicate? Feeling is something sensitive related to seeing and having seen
as process wherefore it is a processional result in the sense of having recognised something
particular, wherefore the result coincides with the process of beginning the definition of the content
by leading to a description for better understanding and reflecting the (visibly contextually) said.
The result of prediction might be the same as the one reached by guessing. Why it
necessarily might be so? It is understandable what is meant by guess. It is something that seems to
come out of nearly nothing. It is less than a forecast and more than esoteric reading of what might
happen due to specific cards opened, shaman scapulimancy, etc. In reality it is much more. And it
has something contained of great value – (historic) empiric experience with an outline towards
future, whereas predicting tells what might be in the future (by not making visible the knowledge
behind, that necessarily comes out of historic experience knowledge as well). One should not forget
that empirics are part of many sciences and usually are scientifically proofed by statistical tools – at
least it works like that in social empiric linguistics.
The result of the performer – I use it here equivalent to the scientist who makes out
something of material, to the manager who takes a decision out of it, the interpreter of the obvious
(? – it needs knowledge!) visible etc. – might be even the same, the mental openness to further
additional creativity and implementation of creativity methods nevertheless might be stronger by
guessing- instead of predicting- as the not predominantly thought of can be optional part for
solution-, change-, risk management etc.
Measuring seems to be more precise than opining. Opining trains other skills of measuring –
one needs to have measured out many things before coming to a concise opinion that can stand
measurement (by management that understand management as science). It is therefore basis of
many solution possibilities and allows a kind of unlimited combinations to be thought of whereas
measuring itself as an absolute quantity gained might lead to firmness and stiffness in any
continuing process as long as the measurement is more important than the development of
measuring instruments and data in its combinational interferences with anything else than absolute
quantitative or approximate values’ data. I think here of the missing link of what needs to be known
in order to gain innovation but what is not explicitly visible at that specific moment of execution.
This missing link of innovation is what I am going to bring into discussion later on in the project
management evolutionary mode on a sort of basis content provided by the user searching for
something.
One might say that looking for scientific material such as books and papers is easy and does
not need general search engines. There are databases one can have a look on. There are even apps,
be it for free or for some Euro that facilitate database library search by crawling a specific number
of beforehand known institutions for beneficial materials according once again to a search mode
that is similar to “googleing”. The output is a more limited list. The advantage of this temporary and
always limited bibliography – in this case often even more limited according to the languages being

5. used and taught at the relevant institution – is its scientific approval and its in comparison to
millions of search results found time effective usage. Reading and borrowing the material still is
another thing. Nevertheless the user has saved some time. The inconvenient thing is: all the books
one has already read are still part of the search result, especially when one has not an institutional
search and book-read history that is saved somewhere. It would make sense to have such a tool
available as app, configured to access everything on the computer in order to select instead of
quantifying.
Last but not least I think of the general average apps / software that is specified as business
and / or management tools. I am offered calendars, accounting tools, storage items, un-folders,
statistics, time tables with alarm clocks that ring some days before the deadline is reached and
remind me of making progress, formula sheets that can be fed according to quantities I want to
move of whatever, document organiser – this tool might be of some usage if it would deal with
contents instead of being activated by drag and drop, and similar; one just has to think of the
document names that rarely are names but lines of numbers one does not know by seeing item and
“number-name” what content is “hidden”, time managers – some of them even might calculate
efficiency by just counting the number of words written within x minutes, multitasking activities by
keeping the computer “working” by moves etc. It is administration, and it is some management in
processional developments according to beginning and finalization of projects in their basic
interrelating modes of schedules, budgets, human resources, etc. But it is far away of working
applications that can something sophisticated human like in creativity that is always a highly
qualitative and quantitative part of all sciences, be it natural sciences, technology, medicine, and
humanities of all kind. Possible management modes and processes in science management and its
creative parts I am going to discuss about in the next topic.
Managing Sciences in an international and intercultural Environment
I had been working in an organisational environment what roughly can be described under the
following key points of management: governmental (non profit), and therefore a qualitative
approach on managing as art, and set single project management within the huge whole project that
run under the condition of science management as science. The aim of the organisation was, and
still is, to link universities in a global, nevertheless restricted geographic area, in this case Austria
and Central- and East Asia. The main aim was to strengthen scientific ties by being better in
innovative aim-reaching on different approaches of various (scientific) cultures and their
interdependent view on necessary contents (that are always related to a whole society and at the
same time a specific part of society), be it the construction work of tunnelling under different
geographical and legal conditions, medicine focused on an illness and its possible cures (according
again for example to legal structures in finding solutions by laboratory work, definitions of
insurances about how much medicine is allowed per maximum to cost for any national individual),
education in specific disciplines, intercultural dealings as a scientific mode to develop out of set
traditions to show better performance etc.
Universities are populated by a huge mass of individuals who are internationally interlinked
with other individuals in a more or less tight way according to fields of research, departments,
conferences and newly acquaintances who are of some interest due to research fields and sympathy
– the latter still is related to research and its context of interest executed, whereas the context can
either be supportive due to its similarity in thinking or due to its exact opposite by being that
contrary and interestingly new that a kind of missing link can be made out that could be of some
relevance and therefore put into consideration.
Linking Austria institutionally is somehow easy – Austria is a very small country with a
quantity of universities that can be overlooked. It might become little more difficult when it comes
to link disciplines and persons of different departments of one overhead research area (esp. when
they consider themselves as concurrence in negative by fearing that more insight into ideas than a
scientific paper or book can give are provided by scientifically deeper contact and exchange, and

6. therefore might be “used” by the others as inspiration for their work) and it gets really complex
when one needs to decide which Universities in Asia should be part of. Any technique is always
human source and management of human beings, online and offline.
The complexity in decision lays in the fact that people are not acting just in the background but that
they play a role in the differentiation of whether a university is considered to be excellent as a
whole – this can be done with the help of rankings even though the limits of objectiveness are easily
reached when it comes to quantities of something- or whether there are already departmental
relations given due to scientific exchanges and co-operation in specific fields that are of great
importance to the scientists involved and are evaluated positively. They are an inner-circle and
know each other. It is sciences, and it is a kind of politics and loyalty formed sometimes over years
the younger generations are getting part of according to their direct superiors and dependencies of
fitting into an environment defined by specific knowledge, its innovation and a kind of group
lobbying as nucleus that needs each other in a set structure. Social media and internationalisation
going beyond of conferences and already set contacts might lead to a more open and frank
exchange of scientific knowledge and ideas – instead they lead just to new groupings and parallel
structures one once again needs to identify out of thousands the adequate addressee.
Let me come back to the offline world. This structure is opened from the outside via an
organisational overhead network with the (political) aim to make out more of knowledge by getting
more sophisticated and efficient solutions by inputs that make knowledge firm in the sense of
adding new international scientists’ groupings as consequence, and more open in the sense of
having a fluctuating specific input out of the network (for example scholarship-holders who work
for several months at a partner institution in conferences that are open just to scientists of member
institutions who can give an input to a specifically defined aim that should be reached etc.). The
latter does not need to be necessarily included into all the activities of the specific research, whereas
there is a forming of groups of continuous research for a defined time taking place in order to find a
solution to the given problem of interest.
There is an austro-centric approach – it can be ignored, as I cannot consider it to be harmful
in any sense to the co-operation itself. The “harm” might start where my specific problem with
“google-output” starts: when one calls somebody or something not yet personally known to any
individual of the network it needs to be qualified at least in one step of the whole project procedure;
the earlier the better. The offline “search-engines” are co-ordinators who are themselves based in a
specified field of research; they just can hand over and spread information, they can discuss the
item and look explicitly for scientists who might be useful for the whole reaching of the aim, they
can link people in some sense, but they cannot qualify (and they do not need to do so as they are
dealing in a restricted area). Even though a whole search engine might be compared to a restricted
area it is nevertheless a more open field at the same time as the communication process itself takes
place in a different way of wording that it obviously cannot overcome at the moment. The co-
ordinator can hand over (even via technical tools) a description of what is needed and about the
basic thought behind. It is more than key words (even if some key words might be provided similar
to an article by the author of the file). It is sent to a known, and already (pre-) selected group of
people. It is not as with the conference information of AMSE 2015 that just came like that into my
spam-mail.
And here I come again to my “problem” with the search engine and the finding of the right
information that might be of use (and still not necessarily is at that moment until I have done
reading and related it to my specific needs that always contain a certain quantity of uncertainty, that
just can be transferred into a qualitative certainty after having found additional useful basis material
leading to innovation). The search engine still does not “think” in this way – it believes to be
creative when leaving structures of human kind that even human kind pragmatically does not define
in seriousness. Such structures are exactly there where natural and technical sciences believe to be
objective due to redundant thinking as they are not capable of dealing with complexity of variety
provided by human kind. They look for norms as standards – this works with the setting of the
concrete final product. It does not work with the complexity of complex variable structures such as

7. content that leaves a certain surrounding already in its basis as well as in its final product that itself
can become more perfect by hard work of defining parametrical settings. One needs to come to an
approximate output of the content searched for. Key words only are not sophisticated, neither are
creative (Boolean) plays that mostly even bring more useless material to the surface of the search
engine due to a thought creativity that is far away from the necessity of the always additional field
of concrete key wording.
Why should I for example want to buy a four star hotel in Haiti just because a friend of mine wrote
in an e-mail that she wanted to spend her vacation in a five star hotel in Portugal, and therefore has
bought some items such as a Haitian hat with a price target that includes the number four?
“Recommendations by google”… It does not become better when correct grammar use is
automatically corrected because I have written such a simple sentence as “Die Welt ist rund”, just to
become corrected into “Die Welt ist Hund” what definitely does not make any sense as it does not
just leave grammatical evidence, but substitutes something that has no grammatical equivalent in its
inner form, wherefore there can never be made any sense out of it if no new words and
consequently new grammar structures are added.
The key words become creatively mixed by the software just to pretend having intelligence behind.
No, actually it is dullness, as the stuff cannot read context and interrelation out of non key words
defining personal interrelationships, even in its probably most simple mode of you and I relations. It
is an item of narcissism that is thought by the software engineer just as you, you, and you in order
to make me think of I, I, and I. “I need to have even though a friend has”. But when I really want to
have, because I am searching for something it is the opposite way. It is: I as thought of “google-I”
have somewhere in the huge server landscape a thousands of materials available – “google-I” is
proud of their storage. And “google-I” furthermore wants to make them visible (pretending to know
“my imminent google-I”), too, wherefore they are presented all even though they do not full-fill at
least some quantity of entered search criteria, not speaking yet of quality.
Generally speaking, if one wants to link something in a general way offline it is quite similar
to linkages in online world – at least it seems to be so as even social media etc. cannot deal in
different ways on its usage as the offline world. Globalisation itself is not easier and more efficient
just because of the internet, it is just faster in time where individual connections are already given
and distance tools such as “postal services”, “telephony” (what is not faster in time but nicer in
price and interaction due to physical visibility and therefore better interaction by seeing the whole
what human expression and language defines), explicit social communities etc. are given. With
social communities it is again the same: a society is a very large structure wherefore one needs
grouping. Therefore there are masses of groups again to be found in social media be it private, semi
private and professional or just professional that run in parallel modes with the urgent need to be
more specific (in the hope of being much more accurate, something they are not as this accurateness
is always based on exclusion and a sort of demarcation instead of inclusion in a big whole by
technical selection in the sense of fitting due to similarity and / or due to missing links of interest).
The analogy online and offline would be in this case: a University network looking for synergies in
knowledge (and linking human beings) being quite the same as Facebook, LinkedIn, Google plus
etc. There is a structure – and it needs communication. But how can this communication work in the
case of science based context that in its communication contains texts, images, knowledge that is
innovative in its settings, ideas, applications, ways of thinking, descriptive and suggestive ways,
schools and traditions one might have learned to fight (and therefore deal with them or even
ignoring them, something not really better and more serious), different languages etc.?
Can the former mentioned paper provided by the co-ordinator be a solution for anything
related to specified basis context that is more than key words and scanning as a synonym to copying
and defining with whatever statistics laying behind key words lead to a selection of which material
is presented to me? How could this work for the user? What would I like to do as a user except of
digging in stupid key words in given forms? I would like the machine work after I have had some
work as my basis is a contextual (including an aim) instead of a just aiming as buying for example a

8. flight ticket or a book I have read about within another book, or heard about by somebody whose
suggestion is personally related.
Project Management Working Sequences offline (with technical support) & Scenario of how
online inter-textual context-driven applications could look like to the user
There are objectives that can be even found in supposedly creative and, in case one likes to
synonymize it, chaotic environments – chaos, creativity, mind, playing, culture(s) etc. have some
structure that can be modelled, and therefore abstracted from the individual to the simulated whole.
There is no black or white but there is just something as interactive growing; seriousness starts
where reality makes laugh (see above for the daily intelligence of technology).
This kind of interactive growing in my opinion would be necessarily needed to develop creatively
in compared to formal and informal communicative situations by having some contextual user
input, suggestions out of various stages of pre-selections and selections, inter-linkages until getting
a kind of structured modular play ground, defined by categories and modular looking. It might be
that each document involved into the whole search process might provide something else than any
relation to a scientific institution, key words and document titles one after having done the
download too often just re-finds by opening the document or starting once again a search, this time
in the deepness of the own computer. Documents are products – might any product code given by
the issuing scientist and / or institution, conference-holder, etc. be a useful tool at least for the
technology behind science management issues to crawl through codes only? It already is a form of
pre-selection of crawling the whole World Wide Web for something that might already have a
qualitative use for the individual. It can be part of technical optimisation. Humans leave institutions,
change working environments what too often goes hand in hand with loosening contacts and
building new networks etc. Issued and qualitative certified product codes of scientific works
remain.
One further question is whether processes of norming or differentiation, or even both going hand in
hand, lead to a simplification of usage and applicability in quality and efficiency.
Let me deal with the following in the linear structure of how management science as science
considers the process of management to be done in the correct way (at least in a generalisation for
the German speaking countries) and what out of it might be of transferral usage inspiring thinking
from probable applicable use to technical software-programing background. About its realisation
just specialists can know.
Projects are complex and complicated. This leads to innovation. The same is with texts as a
concept-basis that already is the output of a thinking process put into words, relations, contains
formulas, models, references to other scientific works, eliminations (!), a process not to be under-
evaluated in the process of selective work and much more. Management deals with and evokes,
provokes and changes the other in some ways. Projects are based on a status-quo situation and
should lead to a defined aim-situation. And projects always mean changes. Those changes can come
due to external inputs. What if the user of a programme can support this process by giving specific
inputs to make selective work more sophisticated? What is the basis, what the aim?
Roughly speaking in this case the basis is a status quo of thinking. It can be an article, a book, a
sum of articles, written ideas etc. What if those ideas are not just uploaded (in case they are) and
made accessible to others, but can be voluntarily put into action as initial to start the search? Legal
terms for own production and / or usage of those written by others should be clear already by the
right now as they are just used as basis for the generation of search results. Just think of a
contextual number of documents the user can enter by selection in order to start scientifically
related search, either of the own discipline or, as interdisciplinary approaches of similar
implications do make sense either for inspiration or getting deeper into details of all the other
disciplines that deal with a certain number of correlating questions.
The prerequisite would be a technical reading function that understands and not just
produces a copy, be it by reading, by just duplicating, but by reading out not just key words but

9. interrelation of subjects and objects through a document. Furthermore it should be able to think in
interlinked disciplines in its main dense relations and in its widest possible applications such as for
example neurosciences being part of humanities, didactics, methodology, intercultural culture
studies, medicine, psychology, biology etc. Frames, conditions and restrictions need to be set. In
texts it is a synthesis out of syntactical frames, implicated relations of subjects and objects,
languages in written and in programming, disciplines, key words etc. and vice versa. There is still
the possibility of wrong and inefficient inter-linkage as it is the actual situation with the great
amount of output already nowadays. This could be defined as a kind of risk in an individually set
module that contains explicitly those risks due to more open search criteria-results as encountered
right now. This might even include such clearly defined details as various editions, re-printings by
other publishers etc. Each module is designed similar to a file-order one just needs to open to have a
document list and author, discipline and title immediately visible.
Environmental restrictions for sure are languages and cultures. Should there be a selection
made by the searching person or a quantitative output provided including languages the person does
not understand? There could be a mode for both – language criteria that can be individualised by the
person who is searching content and suggestions by the search engine put in a specific module as it
has translated content as being possibly useful. Translation tools still do not work properly but they
will do so one day. As soon as they are able to look more on the content instead of specific words
and words around to be little more precise in working with the translated words and synonyms of
dictionaries, very often in lack of linguistic standards, completeness or professional word
competence. Then the suggestion of content written in languages one does not understand is going
to make real sense.
All the modules can undergo various stages of pre-selection until the final selection seems
satisfactory for further offline usage. It can be brought again into online usage as often as one likes
to by selecting new contents, or a variation of contents comparable to gain new results. There is
formal and informal communication taking place. The communication can include a tool that
defines the aim of the search. This must be an input provided by the searching scientist. The
software should work either with similarities and / or differences, looking for the possible missing
links in order to reach the aim. It is using and adapting creativity tools for technology – the search
engine could create a set of for example brain-stormed or mind mapped output the scientist can
confirm, erase, add in order to gain more sophisticated and newly selected ideas out of the crawled
internet.
It is using the top-down principle by making correct and clear lines of demarcation of the
contextual-text-selection related to all the documents available (under product code principle). The
sub- and part-systems are defining clearly in- and output and follow the idea of pre-selecting and
selecting actively under a satisfactory result for offline work-procedures is given. This leads to the
necessary transparency of categories the search has finalised (together with the acceptance of the
searching person) for the specific moment.
Bottom-up principle always is used when the solution at least for one module of a set
category is confirmed for setting it into relation to non-satisfactory modules of categories.
A documentary system should be provided that gives statistical access to the quota of runs
(via the dialogue with the user of acceptance or not of a module provided) for successful module
content and set priorities in specific run-throughs, further document usage through citations and
references in later articles and books, just to think about two possible needs in order to make the
usage for the individual much more sophisticated, easy and time saving.
An interactive selection tool should be provided that just gives the opportunity to confirm
acceptances and parameters of influence one had based the re-run for the module(s). The
documentation itself is put into the documentary system in form of a book of duties the system
should work with in order to provide statistical material to the system that continuously needs to
become applied in order to gain always better and more individualised search results for the needs
of the user. As scientists often are part of consisting working groups a parallel tool should be
provided that analyses all the single activities of the group members in order to gain optimisation in

10. the group reciprocal to the individual and vice versa. This tool should be able to hold in evidence
the overall project of the whole group as well as the individual projects and its linkages towards
each other similarly as done with the product code selection of materials. This process can be
categorised by the project leader who could just drop the relevant articles into by him or her
categorised modules. The software should be able to use this as basis for further search restrictions
and ways of contextual thinking.
The main questions the analysis needs to focus on are:
1. The satisfaction with the results until the final module is accepted for offline use;
2. Are the defined aims the same as the solutions realised with the help of the finally accepted
combination of modules;
3. What aims could not be reached (and why);
4. Was the aimed application in usage reached, or not;
5. Finalisation of the article, book etc.
The final product itself should be uploaded again similar to when the search for it was started in
order to gain statistical information of which quantities and qualities were implemented and which
search needs to look for additionally or by leaving away next time for reducing run-throughs. A
module should be kept as a kind of dustbin to show the definitely not usable documents for that
specific kind of research and thinking.
The same needs to be done in case pictures from the Internet are part of the search. It is more than
unnecessary that search results for “qing dynasty”, “Qianlong” etc. provide photos from hello Kitty
stuff etc. just because uploaded by a Qian Long, being part of a project of dynasty group or having
creatively changed “qing” to “king” wherefore “king prawns” are a further part of photo-material
shown as a result. Any scientifically used photo should get a product code, too, either automatically
by the article, book etc. being part of, or by the scientific institution providing the photo for further
use for anybody interested in so that usage (and copy rights) in case it is necessary can be traced
back much more easily.
The user follows a strategy by asking the right questions to the technology similar to the
relevant aim input for each module. There should be the opportunity be given to provide at any
stage of the interaction process human being – machine a specification page related to the at the
beginning selected content. This specification page is not identical to the aim—input (but can be a
kind of description).
Another tool should search for newly uploaded and product coded documents as long as the
project duration line is still set on continuing instead of on no further interest in scientific material
on the basis issues given is looked for.
The whole search process related to the final aims and insertions follows the principle:
1. Defining the final aim;
2. Structuring the way towards the aims by modular run-throughs until acceptance;
3. Analysis of the various, with the help of “need to be reached for sure-“ and “should be
reached if-“, possible aims such as concordance, difference, missing links that could lead to
innovation etc. as dialogue-tool between selective confirming forms that are held as simple
as possible as their relation is put to each as well as to each module as to all the modules
provided according to the categorisation; in this process operations towards the aims,
priority settings of selective contents, and decisions towards the aim are included.
4. Documentation of aims and changes in aims;
5. Adaptation through refined corrections towards the aim until the accepted modules are
transferred into the offline process of work.
Various projects can run with the help of a time line punctate or continuously. Some projects
(respectively articles) might be worked on parallel due to their contents wherefore modules should
be interlinked either according to the basis selected material and / or the project-accordance selected
in the time line to set demarcation against articles that having nothing to do with content x but with
content y, only. The time line includes deadlines, dates, months (related to the progressive works
etc.), aims to be reached and reached until the whole project is completed, co-workers’ contracts

11. run out etc. and is set according to budgets (as some publication etc. might be available by purchase
only). There could be a time-management- tool one can enter the time available, can read the time
off one would need for reaching the aims more efficiently, how long one is working on selected
material and the process of pre-selecting via refined searches, including the scheduling of general
time one works offline on the specific project etc.
Summary
Search engines need to learn to qualify by leaving key word thinking and come to inter-relative and
contextual reading competence in order to provide categorised quality instead of additive quantities.
Qualification is a process of selection and reduction to the minimum quantity of irrelevant search
output, and is equivalent to the maximum quality of usefulness of search output. As a user I do not
want to undergo time occupying procedures of working myself through thousands of documents. I
want to have access to useful categorised systems I can open, ignore or even delete according to
individual preferences and experiences gained with specific search engines and related tools. I
would like to work with much more interactive tools that develop with individual project-
management of sciences and scientific contents. To cause efficiency product evaluation as content
as done in peer-reviewing is relevant, nevertheless there should some further qualification marks set
that make search for relevant scientific papers and books much easier. One can think of product
codes to facilitate selected crawling for search engines. In my opinion there is the necessity to
change thinking and selecting modes in order to make life with search engines and scientific
databases as found in libraries etc. easier and less time consuming by an overall search tool for
scientists and science management.
References
[1] Veerabhdrappa Havinal, Management and Entrepreneurship, New Age International, New
Delhi, 2009.
[2] Bruno Jenny, Projektmanagement, 2nd
ed., vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich, 2005.