Skip to content

Organisational structures in OSIRIS

What options are available for mapping research areas in OSIRIS? And which option is best suited to which structure? In this article, I would like to present the two options and briefly explain their respective advantages and disadvantages. At the end, I will provide a brief decision-making guide to help you choose the right option.

In principle, research areas can be mapped in OSIRIS in two different ways. Which option makes sense depends largely on the structure of your institute and the desired evaluation mode.

1. Research areas as separate entities (cross-sectional)

OSIRIS offers research areas as separate entities. These function as cross-sectional areas across the entire organisation.

A research area can be linked to:

  • People
  • Organisational units (any hierarchical level)
  • Activities
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Other objects

The link is flexible and is created directly when the respective objects are created or edited. It is also possible for an object to be assigned to several research areas.

When does this make sense?

This option is particularly suitable if:

  • Research areas do not fit strictly into the organisational structure.
  • Individuals or projects belong to multiple research areas.
  • Research areas are defined as strategic or thematic clusters.
  • Cross-sectional evaluations across different units are desired.

Example

An institute has the following structure:

  • Department A
  • Department B

Both departments work partly in the field of climate change research. Here, the research area "climate change" can be created as a separate entity and assigned to individual persons, projects or activities of both departments.

Advantage: Flexible and precise assignment. Disadvantage: Higher maintenance effort, as assignments must be made actively.

2. Mapping research areas via organisational units

Alternatively, research areas can be modelled directly as organisational units.

This is particularly useful if:

  • The structure is clearly hierarchical.
  • Individuals are clearly assigned to a research area.
  • There is no need for discussion regarding the assignment.
  • All activities are to be automatically assigned to the individual's research area.

Example

Structure:

  • Research area A
  • Working group 1
  • Working group 2
  • Research area B

Individuals are permanently assigned to a research area (or a subordinate unit). All activities are automatically assigned to the corresponding research area via the organisational unit.

Advantage: Less maintenance effort, automatic assignment. Disadvantage: Less flexible for interdisciplinary or cross-thematic structures.

3. Evaluations

Both variants enable comprehensive evaluations and have very similarly structured overview pages.

The desired evaluation:

"Which research area created which activities during the course of the year?"

is easily possible in both variants.

  • In variant 1, the evaluation is carried out via a direct link to the research area.
  • In variant 2, the evaluation is carried out via the organisational unit (including hierarchy, if applicable).

Technically, both can be implemented equally well – the decisive factor is the organisational logic within the institute.

4. Decision-making aid

Question Recommendation
Are research areas cross-thematic? Use separate entity
Do individuals clearly belong to one or more research areas? Use organisational units
Is research assigned solely on the basis of individuals' affiliations? Use organisational units
Do many individuals work in an interdisciplinary manner? Use separate entity
Should the assignment be as automatic as possible? Use organisational units

5. Brief summary

  • Hierarchical, stable structure → Organisational units
  • Thematic, flexible structure → Own research areas

In case of doubt, a hybrid form may also be useful – the most important thing is to realistically assess the maintenance effort for the researchers.