=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2362/paper27
|storemode=property
|title=The Semantic Network Creation for an Innovative Project Scope as a Part of Project Knowledge Ontology
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2362/paper27.pdf
|volume=Vol-2362
|authors=Olga Malyeyeva,Natalya Nosova,Oleg Fedorovych,Victor Kosenko
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/colins/MalyeyevaNFK19
}}
==The Semantic Network Creation for an Innovative Project Scope as a Part of Project Knowledge Ontology==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2362/paper27.pdf
The Semantic Network Creation for an Innovative
Project Scope as a Part of Project Knowledge Ontology
Olga Malyeyeva1[0000-0002-9336-4182], Natalya Nosova2[0000-0002-2278-0939],
Oleg Fedorovych3[0000-0001-7883-1144] and Victor Kosenko4[0000-0002-4905-8508]
1-3National Aerospace University "Kharkiv Aviation Institute", Chkalov str. 17, Kharkiv,
61070, Ukraine,
4State Enterprise "Kharkіv Scientific-Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering
Technology", Sumskaya str. 130a, Kharkiv, 61023, Ukraine
o.maleyeva@khai.edu
Abstract. In the article the subject for research is the content of the innovation
project. The project knowledge system and contextual competencies of the pro-
ject participants are considered. The methods of system analysis, ontological
approach and semantic modeling are used. A conceptual model of project
knowledge is proposed, which includes the basic knowledge system of the pro-
ject and competence of the performers. The generalized structure of the project
content in a schematic presentation of requirements, project phases and its par-
ticipants is considered. An ontological model of an innovative project content in
the form of a semantic network has been developed. The practical implementa-
tion of this model was made on the example of a project for the development of
a reconnaissance-strike complex for action in mountain conditions. The descrip-
tion of the project knowledge system and the definition of contextual compe-
tencies will allow evaluating the project personnel and solving the problem of
maximum adaptation of the already formed and worked out team for a specific
project.
Keywords: innovative project, knowledge ontology, semantic network, project
content, people management.
1 Introduction
In a changeable environment and unstable development of enterprises in Ukraine,
more and more attention is paid to the issue of effective management of innovative
projects. At the same time for the successful project implementation the formation of
a suitable project team plays a great importance. Therefore, special attention is paid to
the problems of recruitment [1 - 3]. In this work, staff is used as the project manage-
ment team and the project implementers — heads of departments, specialists or scien-
tific and technical personnel, workers or technical personnel, and support staff.
Existing models and methods do not provide the full solution of such a task as the
selection and adaptation of existing staff under the project [4 - 7].
While considering the qualifications of project performers, the contextual compe-
tencies of the participants should be taken into account, but not the positions [8, 9].
Contextual competences support project values, they include an understanding of the
project, having experience of participating or managing projects at different levels,
having knowledge and experience to successfully complete the project, and
knowledge to develop criteria for the success of a project in a project-oriented enter-
prise [10 - 12].
Recently, great attention has been paid to the formation and analysis of the
knowledge system in project management. For example, in [13], the information
component of knowledge management in an enterprise is considered, which is a
source of processes information, serves as reference and control documents when
introducing new forms of project management, is a methodical basis for staff training
and represents a database of documents in the audit management system. The theoret-
ical substantiation of the formation of core competencies of project managers on the
basis of the characteristic properties of adjacency matrices and its degrees creates the
main interest [14]. The use of ERP-systems allows to plan various types of resources
based on the company knowledge, but this class of systems implements a functional
approach, does not take into account the structure of project knowledge. [15].
The theoretical substantiation of the formation of core competencies of project
managers on the basis of the characteristic properties of adjacency matrices and its
degrees creates the main interest [16, 17].
2 Main Material Presenting
Ontological data analysis involves the creation of a terms glossary for studying the
characteristics of the objects and processes that make the system. In addition, the
basic logical interrelationships between the corresponding terms are documented.
Thus, the ontology of knowledge includes a set of terms and rules according to which
these terms can be combined to build reliable statements about the state of the system
at some point in time. Basis of these statements, appropriate conclusions can be done
that allow to made changes to the system in order to increase the efficiency of its
functioning [18 - 20].
A conceptual model of knowledge is proposed (Fig. 1), which includes the main
areas of knowledge: the project knowledge system and the competences of the execu-
tives. The model also describes the process of forming knowledge models:
definition of the project knowledge ontology, which allows you to a hierarchy of
knowledge areas for project content,
determination of the knowledge ontology of the project staff on the competencies
of the performers categories,
comparison of the project knowledge system with the staff competencies.
Consider the main components of the conceptual model. The ontology of knowledge
about the project includes the classification of projects [21, 22] and the project con-
tent model in the form of a semantic network.
The ontology of knowledge about the project provides a certain level of flexibility
of the knowledge model and the possibility of its gradual development. In addition,
this ontology contains the concepts and relations, which is necessary for the formation
of a hierarchy of knowledge areas of project management [23].
Ontology of project knowledge
Hierarchy of project knowledge areas
"Leaders"
Strategy
"Specialists"
General structure of the project Creation of the project Control
scope model semantic network "Workers"
Execution
Project classification system Project scope
Project staff competence system
Contextual
Competence of the Knowledge and
competence of
project management skills of technical
scientific and
team staff
technical staff
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of project knowledge.
The ontology of the project team includes a description of the basic concepts of the
team management and project executors - the knowledge of the performers;
knowledge of scientific and technical personnel; knowledge of the technical staff.
For objects with knowledge that are described in the ontology of the project team,
meta descriptions are created. The meta description of the object i has the following
form:
Mi = {Mik, Mic}, (1)
where Mik - a set of metadata corresponding to the properties of the ontology concept,
and an instance of which is the described object,
Mic - a set of metadata describing the knowledge content about an object.
The structure of the specified metadata in the form of concept properties is de-
scribed in the ontology of the project team. Metadata element values are either refer-
ences to other instances of concepts, or literals. Thus, these metadata associate an
instance of an object - a source of knowledge with other instances of objects de-
scribed in the ontology of the project team, and therefore this component can be
called "contextual metadata".
The second component of the meta descriptions (Mic) directly describes the
knowledge that is implicitly or explicitly contained in the object. This part of the me-
ta-description connects the object with instances of concepts from ontologies of
knowledge about the project and can be called “content metadata”.
Content metadata for object i can be described as follows:
Mi = {(tri1, ki1), . . . , (trif, kif)}, (2)
where trij = – triplet;
sij –some concept from the ontology of the domain area, knowledge of which is
contained in the described object;
pij – relation defined in the ontology of the domain area;
oij – reference to the instance of the concept in the domain area ontology;
kij ∈ (0,1] – coefficient denoting the relevance of the triplet trij for object i. While
describing a metadata triplet, the elements pij and oij may be skipped.
Let consider the features of project knowledge, taking into account the complex
classification of projects. For the effective implementation of an innovative project,
the description of a new subject area is important. Each domain area has its own spe-
cifics, which can greatly affect the way the innovation implementation.
Based on the specifics of the subject area, the structured content of the project is
described (Fig. 2).
Requirments
To project To product
Initiation phase Concept phase Planning phase Implementation Completion phase
Task 1 Task 1 Task 1 Task 1 Task 1
Task 2 Task 2 Task 2 Task 2 Task 2
... ... ... ... ...
Task N Task N Task N Task N Task N
Project management team Project performers
"Leaders" "Specialists" "Workers" "Employees"
Project participants
Fig. 2. The generalized structure of the project scope.
Typically, project content includes:
description of requirements;
list and description of project stages;
list and description of tasks;
list and description of project activities;
the structure of the project executors, etc.
It should be noted that in order to analyze the provided project, as well as to deter-
mine and take into account the specifics of the project knowledge that executors
should have, initially it is necessary to classify projects according to various classifi-
cation criteria: areas of activity, by the nature of the domain area of the project, by
scale, by duration, by complexity, etc. [24].
The next step is to determine the knowledge of the project in accordance with the
basic processes of the project scope management [25].
1. In the process of project initialization, the knowledge system includes: knowledge
of the political, socio-economic, technological, eco-logical state of the external en-
vironment of the project; knowledge of the mission, vision, main objectives of the
project; knowledge of the project strategy; ability and skills to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the project, opportunities and threats; skills and expe-
rience in evaluating the beneficial effect of the project and activities; experience
for estimating potential costs etc.
2. In the process of project scope planning, the knowledge system includes:
knowledge to create databases and knowledge bases; forecasting experience, in-
cluding expert and formalized methods; experience in developing scenarios for the
development of objects and their environment; skills to identify and analyze the
strengths and weaknesses of the object, opportunities and threats; skills to identify
and analyze the problems of maintaining the achieved state and achieving the pre-
viously set goals; experience in the formation of goals, criteria and priority areas
for development etc.
3. In the process of determining the project scope, knowledge and skills are needed
for working with templates of hierarchical work structures.
4. In the process of checking the project scope, skills and experience communication
with the customer are necessary, as well as a comparative analysis of the planned
and current state of the project products, activities, phases and tasks.
5. In the process of monitoring changes in the content of the project are needed: skills
of working with reports; knowledge, skills and experience with the project change
control system, methods and tools for additional content planning and content de-
termination.
For a detailed structured description of the project domain, it is necessary to form an
ontology of its content. One of the effective tools for the formation of ontology is the
semantic network. The basis of the semantic network is instances or objects, concepts
or classes, attributes, relationships [26].
The construction of a semantic model begins with the selection of composite ele-
ments, which act as objects of description. Based on the content of the technical task
of the innovation project, we will define the objects for describing the semantics
model. It should be noted that each element of the description can be single or repre-
sent a group of elements [27].
Nodes and links in the proposed semantic network have the following attributes:
Name – line of text (object name), the corresponding node.
ObjectClass – object class of the corresponding node: Functional, Organization,
Specification, Resource, Structural.
ObjectType – the type of the object corresponding to the node: the central concept
(Central), the context (Context), the group of concepts (Group).
SemanticType – semantic rank. The main digits are: information (Inform), property
(Property), executor (Excuter)
Relation – the type of semantic connection between nodes used to build a network.
The following classes of objects are highlighted here:
Functional (project name, project purpose, basis for implementation, goal structure,
etc.)
ObjectClass = “Functional”[O1, O2.1, O2.2, O2.3, O3.3];
Organization (project team, implementing organizations)
ObjectClass = “Organization”[O2.4, O2.4.1];
Specification (basic requirements for implementation, requirements for the product
and works, etc.)
ObjectClass = “Specification”[O3.1, O5.1, О5.1.1, О5.1.2, О5.1.3, О5.1.4];
Structural (development stages, work hierarchy)
ObjectClass = “Structural”[O3.2, О4.1];
Resource (work resources)
ObjectClass = “Resource”[O5.2, O5.2.1, O5.2.2, O5.2.3].
When describing elements, the types of objects were highlighted (ObjectType):
Central – central concept when building a semantic network (project name, basis
for project execution)
ObjectType= “Central”[O1, О2.1];
Context – auxiliary, clarifying the concept (the purpose of the project, the structure
of goals, the project team, the performers, the basic requirements, stages, tasks)
ObjectType= “Context”[O2.2, О2.3, O2.4, O2.4.1, O3.1, O3.2, О3.3, O4.1];
Group – group of concepts (technical requirements, product specifications, quality
of work, duration of work, cost of work, resources)
ObjectType= “Group”[O5.1, О5.2, O5.1.1, O5.1.2, O5.1.3, O5.1.4, O5.2.1,
O5.2.2, O5.2.3].
When describing the elements, semantic types were identified. (SemanticType):
Inform - the name of the project, the basic requirements, steps, tasks. These ele-
ments are textual, they are purely informational characteristics of the development
object
SemanticType = “Inform” [O1, О3.1, O3.2, O3.3, O4.1];
Property - the basis for the development, the purpose of the project, the structure of
goals, requirements for the project, product characteristics, quality of work, dura-
tion, cost of work, resources, logistics. These elements are characterizing, they de-
scribe the properties of an innovative product and the conditions for its develop-
ment
SemanticType = “Property”[O2.1, O2.2, O2.3, O5.1, О5.2, O5.1.1, O5.1.2,
O5.1.3, O5.1.4, O5.2.1, O5.2.2, O5.2.3];
Executor - project team, performers. Are objects of the semantic network that de-
scribe the project participants
SemanticType = “Executor”[O2.4, O2.4.1].
Define the types of relationships used to build a semantic network (Relation):
clar - a link that indicates that the lower level object is a top-level refinement ob-
ject;
dep - expresses the relationship between objects;
deagr - expresses the decomposition of a single top-level object into several low-
level objects;
inv - connection shows that one object is a consequence of another element of the
semantic network.
These types of links allow to display the relationship of elements with regard to their
semantic features (Fig. 3). Dotted arrows indicate the connections between the ele-
ments, which reflect the innovative properties of the project.
O1
О2.2 О2.4
О2.1 О2.3
О2.2.1
О2.4.1
О3.1 О3.2 О3.3
О4.1
О5.1 О5.2
О5.1.1 О5.2.1 О5.2.2 О5.2.3
О5.1.4
О5.1.2 О5.1.3
Fig. 3. The semantic model structure of the project scope.
An important step in building a semantic model is the partitioning of the semantic
network in accordance with the phases of the innovation project life cycle.
Four phases are most often distinguished: the initiation phase, the planning phase,
the implementation phase and the completion phase.
However, for the innovative project the most complete, it seems to be the alloca-
tion of another phase before the planning of the project - the concept phase. A dia-
gram that reflects the involvement of staff at different stages is presented in fig. 4.
As at the last stage there is only the closure of all documentation, the compilation
of reports, the termination of contracts, this work is typical for most types of projects
and does not require the acquisition of additional specialized knowledge to perform
such work. Therefore, from the ontology of knowledge, the first four phases of the
innovation project life cycle are more important, as well as the works and participants
that are involved in these stages.
The semantic model of the project scope from its division into phases of the inno-
vation project life cycle is structured as a tree-visible model, that is, the connections
between its elements are directed from top to bottom, which allows them to be con-
sidered in accordance with the development of the project life cycle phases. The initi-
ation phase includes the following elements: the name and purpose of the project, as
well as the basis for its development. Elements such as: project goals, executives,
requirements, stages, tasks, and project work relate to the concept phase. The remain-
ing elements (all types of resources and technical requirements) belong to the plan-
ning and implementation phase.
Project management Phases of the innovation project
team life cycle
"Leaders" Initiation phase
Project performers Concept phase
"Specialists"
Planning phase
"Workers"
Implementation phase
"Support staff" Completion phase
Fig. 4. Scheme of staff participation at different stages of the innovation project life cycle.
In the first three phases, considerable attention is paid to the management staff, re-
searchers and engineering and technical personnel, since it is mainly these partici-
pants who are involved in the preparation of the project. In the fourth phase, the em-
phasis in the selection of personnel is shifted to the working-production personnel.
The practical implementation of this model was made on the example of a project
for the development of a reconnaissance-strike complex for action in mountain condi-
tions (Fig. 5). A hierarchy of classes and subclasses of the project scope was formed
and a semantic network was built in the form of a graph in the Protégé system. Struc-
tured presentation of knowledge and concepts about the project allowed to determine
the relationship in the knowledge system and appropriately determine the necessary
competence of the project staff.
Fig. 5. The semantic web of a project for the development of a reconnaissance-strike complex
for action in mountain conditions.
3 Conclusion
The developed ontological model of the innovation project scope is used to determine
the classes of objects that correspond to the knowledge classes for functional special-
ists and specialists in general. The advantage of this model is the possibility of struc-
turing the project content in the form of a hierarchy of knowledge about the project
requirements, the main tasks and performers. However, this model is static, does not
allow to display the dynamics of interrelations during the project implementation.
The next stage of the research is the selection of the required amount of knowledge
from each class of the semantic model, in accordance with the role in the project
management team; definition of knowledge set required for the full implementation of
the project, and further - the comparison of object classes and functional roles of the
project management team.
References
1. Gavkalova, N.: Human resource capacity as the basis of personnal management. Economic
and management of machine building enterprise: the problems of theory and practice 3, 4-
14 (2014).
2. Baiden, B., Price, A.: The effect of integration on project delivery team effectiveness. In-
ternational Journal of Project Management 29(2), 129-136 (2011).
3. Semiv, L.: Personnel management in the minds of economics knowledge. UBS NLU, Kiev
(2011).
4. Kosenko, N., Kadykova, I., Artiukh, R.: Formalization the problem of a project team
building based on the utility theory. Innovative Technologies and Scientific Solutions for
Industries 1(1), 53-57 (2017). doi:https://doi.org/10.30837/2522-9818.2017.1.0534
5. Malyeyeva, J., Persiyanova, H., Kosenko, V.: Information and software support of the HR
manager of an IT-company. Innovative Technologies and Scientific Solutions for Indus-
tries 1(3), 22-32 (2018). doi:https://doi.org/10.30837/2522-9818.2018.3.022
6. Burke, R.: Project management: planning and control techniques. New Jersey,
USA (2013).
7. Kosenko, N., Kolomiiets, A.: Building and developing a project team on the basis of a
multicriteria model. Innovative Technologies and Scientific Solutions for Industries 2(2),
56-61 (2017). doi:https://doi.org/10.30837/2522-9818.2017.2.0566.
8. De Los Rios, I., et al.: Project–based learning in engineering higher education: two dec-
ades of teaching competences in real environments. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sci-
ences 2(2), 1368-1378 (2010).
9. Project Management: Fundamentals of professional knowledge, National requirements for
the competence of specialists. "Consulting agency" CUBS Group – "Cooperation, Busi-
ness-Service", Moscow (2001).
10. Jałocha, B., et al.: Key competences of public sector project managers. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences 119, 247-256 (2004).
11. Paszkiewicz, Z., Picard W.: Modeling competences in service-oriented virtual organization
breeding environments. In: Proceedings of the 2011 15th International Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) (2011).
12. Gebert, H., et al.: Knowledge-enabled customer relationship management: integrating cus-
tomer relationship management and knowledge management concepts. Journal of
knowledge management 7(5), 107-123 (2003).
13. Kulkarni, U., Ravindran, S., Freeze R.: A knowledge management success model: Theo-
retical development and empirical validation. Journal of management information systems.
23(3), 309-347 (2006).
14. Vaisman, V., Velichko, V., Gogunsky, V.: The system of enterprise standards for
knowledge management in a project-managed organization. Works of Odessa Polytechnic
University 1, 256-261 (2011).
15. Somers, T., Nelson, K.: A taxonomy of players and activities across the ERP project life
cycle. Information & Management 41(3), 257-278 (2004).
16. Diakoulakis, I., et al.: Towards a holistic knowledge management model. Journal of
knowledge management 8(1), 32-46 (2004).
17. Gogunsky, V., Lukianov, D., Vlasenko, O.: Definition of knowledge on count nuclei com-
petence of project managers. Eastern-Еuropean journal of enterprise technologies, vol. 1
10(55), 26-28 (2012).
18. Doerr, M.: The CIDOC conceptual reference module: an ontological approach to semantic
interoperability of metadata. AI magazine 24(3), 75 (2003).
19. Soffer, P. et al.: Modelling off-the-shelf information systems requirements: an ontological
approach. Requirements Engineering 6(3), 183-199 (2001).
20. Ovdiy, O., Proskuddina, G.: Ontology in the context of information integration: presenta-
tion, methods and construction tools. Problems of programming 2(3), 353-365 (2004)
21. Gruber, T.: Ontology, http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-definition-2007.htm, last ac-
cessed 2019/03/16.
22. Derenskaya, Ya.: Classification of projects in project management,
http://www.finanalis.ru/litra/328/2895.html, last accessed 2019/03/19.
23. Nosova, N., Lysenko, E.: Creation of project classification criterion and project knowledge
for all project types. Radioelectronic and computer systems 2 (66), 135-140 (2014).
24. Brandt, S., et al.: An ontology-based approach to knowledge management in design pro-
cesses. Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 32, 1-2, 320-342 (2008).
25. Malyeyeva, O., Nosova, N., Artyuh, R.: Comprehensive method of project knowledge
presentation and evaluation according to the project specific and project staff categories.
Control, Navigation and Communication Systems 2(42), 171 – 175 (2017).
26. Nekrasov, A., Sokolova, N., Lysenko, D.: The semantic model of the technical documenta-
tion ontology for the development of scientific and technical products. Control, navigation
and communication Systems 2(6), 96 – 101 (2007).
27. Nosova, N.: Semantic model of project scope for innovation technical project. Information
Processing Systems 4 (94), 258-262 (2011).