=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2845/Paper_21
|storemode=property
|title=Using yEd Software to Visualize and Analyze Project Management Knowledge Systems Data
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2845/Paper_21.pdf
|volume=Vol-2845
|authors=Dmytro Lukianov,Viktor Gogunskii,Oleksii Kolesnikov,Kateryna Kolesnikova
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/iti2/LukianovGKK20
}}
==Using yEd Software to Visualize and Analyze Project Management Knowledge Systems Data==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2845/Paper_21.pdf
Using yEd Software to Visualize and Analyze Project
Management Knowledge Systems Data
Dmytro Lukianova, Victor Gogunskiib , Oleksii Kolesnikovc and Kateryna Kolesnikovac
a.
Interdisciplinary Institute for Advanced Studies and Retraining, Belarusian National Technical University, 77,
Partyzansky ave., Minsk, 220107, Belarus
b.
Odessa National Polytechnic University, 1, Shevchenko ave., Odessa, 65044, Ukraine
c.
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 60, Volodymyrska Street, Kyiv, 01033, Ukraine
Abstract
The article proposes to consider some conclusions about the significance of a number of
elements of the model of individual competencies of project managers proposed by the
International Project Management Association (IPMA ICB 4.0) when presented as a directed
graph. It is proposed to consider elements of the competency model (a set of 28 elements for
the ICB model for project management) as the vertices of such a graph. It is proposed to
carry out a structural analysis of such a graph using various combinations of representations
that combine the "centrality" parameter and "weight characteristics" for the vertices of such a
graph based on information about the number of edges adjacent to the vertices. The article
demonstrates the approach proposed by the authors to the analysis of a directed graph using
software such as the openly distributed product yEd, which has sufficiently wide capabilities
for visualizing various systems modeled with its help, including graphs. It is also proposed to
consider, as an example of using such a representation, a variant of transforming the existing
IPMA ICB 4.0 model based on the representations for this structure obtained during the
visual analysis using the yEd service. The structure of the general communication system
IPMA ICB 4.0 is clearly demonstrated, and the presentation of each of the blocks of elements
of this model is also visualized. Shows the role of the element "Leadership" as an "integral
element", directly through which communication is carried out between all blocks of the
model of elements. The role of such an element as "Power and Interest" in the analysis of a
directed graph using a set of representations is also highlighted, which demonstrates the
structural relationships of the entire system of elements of the system under consideration
using the "centrality" property.
Keywords 1
Project management, competences model, International Project Management Association,
Individual Competence Baseline, adjacency matrix, directed graph, theory of graphs,
centrality, visual analyses, modeling
1. Introduction
Almost all of the world's leading professional organizations that offer their views on the systems of
necessary knowledge for project management today offer their presentation of the necessary "sets of
competencies" required by managers of projects, programs and project portfolios for successful
management. Such models are offered by such two most authoritative organizations in the world of
project management as the International Project Management Association (IPMA) [1], and the
American Institute for Project Management (PMI) [2].
IT&I-2020 Information Technology and Interactions, December 02–03, 2020, KNU Taras Shevchenko, Kyiv, Ukraine
EMAIL: dlukiano@gmail.com (D. Lukianov); vd.gogunsky@gmail.com (V. Gogunskii); akoles78@gmail.com (O. Kolesnikov);
amberk4@gmail.com (K. Kolesnikova)
ORCID: 0000-0001-8305-2217 (D. Lukianov); 0000-0002-9115-2346 (V. Gogunskii); 0000-0003-2366-1920 (O. Kolesnikov);
0000-0002-9160-5982 (K. Kolesnikova)
© 2020 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
217
2. Problem
Despite the attempts made by a number of authors to describe the interaction of elements of
knowledge systems in various fields of human activity [3-7], unfortunately, there is still no
established approach to formalizing such complex structures as a model of the competence of
specialists, which makes it possible to apply analytical methods to their analysis& At the same time,
attempts are being made to use rather complex analytical approaches to the description and analysis of
such design systems [8, 9]. Despite the tendency that has emerged in recent years towards a similar
representation of the competence structure in IPMA and PMI [10, 11], which happened, possibly due
to ISO, and also despite the existing standards for assessing competencies, there is no unified
approach to representing elements of such systems as systems (or models) of competencies. The lack
of a unified, and, preferably, understandable and accessible, approach to the representation of systems
does not allow, from our point of view, also to compare and evaluate them. Also, the lack of such a
unified approach makes it difficult to apply an analytical approach to solving the problem of choosing
an appropriate project management methodology for the project (including a possible justification for
choosing a "mixed" approach [12]). It seems useful to create a general approach to describing such
models, incl. to adjust existing approaches to project management [14].
3. Methods
As a possible approach to the construction of models of complex organizational, technical, socio-
economic and other systems, it is proposed to use the graph theory toolkit, which is a constituent
element of the general theory of systems in the representation of L. Bertalanffy [13].
An adjacency matrix can serve as a basis for constructing a directed graph for subsequent analysis.
As known, a system that combines sets of some entities, for example (1):
S{s1, s2, …, sm}, (1)
which are vertices of an oriented graph connected by oriented arcs (2)
G{g1, g2, …, gr}, (2)
can be displayed using the adjacency matrix (3)
[сij]S = [i, j], (3)
each line of which shows the connections of one vertex with other vertices of the graph. The
element сij = 1, then it reflects the arc between the vertices Si and Sj. If сij = 0, then the arc directly
between the vertices of the graph i and j is absent.
For the analysis of such structures use the adjacency matrix, which has specific properties. In the
case of successive reduction of the adjacency matrix in the degree n = 2, 3 ... the elements of the n-th
degree (сij)n show the path containing n arcs between the i-th and j-th vertices of the graph.
To formalize the adjacency matrix obtained by the method described above, it is proposed to use
the Microsoft Excel [15] software, in particular, so that other actions can be performed in the same
computing environment to simulate the behavior of the system under study. In particular, due to the
fact that this software in its basic functionality supports the necessary set of operations with matrices.
For further visualization and presentation in the form of a graph, it is proposed to use the yEd [16]
software.
4. Results
An adjacency matrix can serve as the basis for constructing a directed graph for subsequent
analysis. In this case, such a matrix can be easily obtained for the considered IPMA ICB 4.0 system
[17] due to the fact that in the text of this standard there are explicit references to the relationships of
each of the elements with other elements of the system. The logic of its construction corresponds to
that which was applied when describing the structure of the previous version of the IPMA ICB 3.0
model [14] (Fig. 1).
For further visual analysis of the resulting graph, it is proposed to use such well-known and open-
source software as yEd, which allows modeling various kinds of complex structures, in particular,
218
using a wide range of different graph representations. Fig. 2 shows the structure of a graph created in
the yEd environment using the standard Shape Nodes template of structural elements.
Figure 1: Formation of a first-order adjacency matrix for ICB 4.0 (screenshot fragment) [18]
Figure 2: Directed graph for IPMA ICB 4.0 model implemented in yEd (screenshot fragment)
219
As you can see from the fig. 2, yEd allows you to visualize the links (edges) between the elements
of the model (the vertices of the graph), including the direction of these links.
Unfortunately, such a basic view does not allow making any analytical conclusions. It is worth
using other representations to analyze the graph. In particular, the simplest next step can also be a
"circular representation", but with the visualization of the weights of the vertices based on the number
of their connections with other vertices of the graph, as shown in Fig. 3 (normalized with respect to
the element 10 with the maximum number of connections) for Centrality Measuring settings based on
"Number of Connected Edges".
Figure 3: Directed graph for IPMA ICB 4.0 model, implemented in yEd (Circular Layout - Single Cycle
representation) with routing style set as "Arc"
As can be seen from fig. 3, yEd allows visualizing the weights of vertices (model elements) based
on information about the number of edges (links), which makes such a representation much more
information-rich than the primary representation of the model in the form of a graph which presented
in Fig. 2. Nevertheless, such a representation, although it already allows you to form some hypothesis
based on the visualization of the parameters of the system of links, in particular, to allow ranking the
vertices by the number of links, but any spreadsheet editor in which you can sum up values in rows
and columns of the original adjacency matrix (Fig. 1). In graph analysis, one of the key concepts is
centrality. Accordingly, visualization of representations of such a parameter as "centrality" will be of
undoubted interest. At the same time, "centrality" can be considered both "structural" and "weighted".
In particular, thanks to such a representation as "Weighted Centrality" (Fig. 4), it is possible to assess
the importance for the entire structure as a whole, not only of element 10 (as follows from the
representation in Fig. 3), but also 16: This representation allows one to form a number of hypotheses
regarding the role of elements 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 presented in the "far orbit" in the system under
consideration, in addition to other assumptions that can be formed on the basis of the visualization
presented in Fig. 3. In any case, it is obvious that the information content of such a representation is
much higher than that in Fig. 2 or Fig. 3. The visualization capabilities allow you to assess
"centrality" directly from a structural point of view as shown in Fig. 5: In particular, Fig. 5 shows the
importance of element 17, which was not at all visible based on the analysis of weights (Fig. 4), nor,
even more so, such "simple representations" that were presented in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, and were not at
all obvious in any attempt to "visualize" the matrix representation of the system (Figure 1). Thus, in
220
Fig. 3-5, visualization options are presented, perhaps the most important topological representations
of structural links existing in the IPMA ICB 4.0 model
Figure 4: Visualization of some structural indicators (fragment) for a directed graph for the IPMA
ICB 4.0 model in the yEd environment in the Radial Layout view for Weighted Centrality (distance
from center)
Figure 5: Visualization of some structural indicators (fragment) for a directed graph for the IPMA
ICB 4.0 model in the yEd environment in the Radial Layout view for Centrality (distance from center)
5. Discussion
The approach proposed in the article significantly expands the previously described [19] approach
to the analysis of the properties of structural models. At the same time, the use of elements of such an
221
approach has already been presented in relation to the analysis of communication processes in project
management [20, 21], and in some cases it is explicitly applied to the analysis using the construction
of graphs and the subsequent assessment of such parameters specific for the analysis of graphs as
“degree centrality", "Betweenness centrality", "eigenvector centrality" [22]. Nevertheless, the visual
representation of the "centrality" properties, from our point of view, significantly expands the
possibilities of understanding the features of the systems under study. As can be seen from the views
in Fig. 4 and 5, they are fundamentally different from the “descriptive” view in Fig. 2. Although they
are still representations of the same system. In our opinion, the use of such powerful tools for versatile
visualization of the graphs of the studied models allows us to look somewhat differently at the
systems under study than only through the prism of analytical indicators presented in a matrix
(tabular) form. Based on the information presented graphically, it becomes possible not only to
propose new hypotheses regarding the structural relationships of the systems under study, but also to
“quickly test” them by visual means. In particular, Fig. 6 shows the hierarchy of relations between the
vertices of the graph (model elements).
Figure 6: Visualization of some structure properties for a directed graph for the IPMA ICB 4.0 model
in the yEd environment in the Circular Layout view with Enabled Edge Bundling setting on
On the other hand, visualization of structural connections in the form of trees allows you to look at
the studied systems of connections "from a bird's eye view." For example, even if the creators of the
IPMA ICB 4.0 standard had not proposed the grouping of elements of the ICB 4.0 competency model
into three groups of competencies, as presented by its developers, but only information about the
connections between the final elements of the entire model were given, this would be easy to do on
based on the analysis of the graph of such a representation as shown in Fig. 7. Interesting, if the
creators of the IPMA ICB 4.0 standard used similar types of representations of the models they
develop, they might want to separately describe element 10 and describe its role as a connecting
element between the three groups of competency elements, the need for which is clearly visible on the
basis of the analysis of the representation models in fig. 7?
Of particular interest is the analysis of system connections when presented in the form of "Bus
station", where you can also clearly see several clusters of "roads" that form three subsystems
connected by only one "highway" with the main "station" element number 10 (Leadership ), as you
can see on fig. 8. The presented toolkit is also of interest for structural modeling. For example, Fig. 9-
11 show the results of modeling the system modification when the number of graph vertices decreases
by “contracting” some edges to a vertex based on the analysis of the data in Fig. 4-6.
222
Figure 7: Visualization of some statistical indicators (fragment) for a directed graph for the IPMA
ICB 4.0 model in the yEd environment in the Tree Baloon Layout Weighted Center Root
Organic view
Figure 8: Visualization of some structural interdependencies for a directed graph for the IPMA ICB
4.0 model in the yEd environment in the Edge Routing - Orthogonal Bus-style view
As you can see from the visualizations presented in Fig. 9 and 10, the structural integrity of the
system is preserved. In particular, the most significant elements of the system, namely "Power and
interests" (4), "Leadership" (10) and "Project design" (16), continue to demonstrate their importance
as truly backbone factors of the entire system as centers of their "planetary systems" corresponding in
the logic of IPMA ICB 4.0 to each of the three blocks of competence. Further analysis can be carried
out further, but the meaning of the given example is to show the possibility of using such structural
analysis tools when carrying out work on both the creation and modification of systems, in particular,
with the further development of competence systems in the field of professional project management.
223
The exclusion of the vertices 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 from the model, which correspond to the elements
of the "People" block of the original IPMA ICB 4.0 model, which is indicative, does not in any way
diminish the structural role and influence of such an element as "Leadership". This, in turn, creates
additional prerequisites (in particular, quite clearly visible in Fig. 7 and 8) to separate this single
element into a separate subsystem, as an integral basis for the entire IPMA ICB model, for example,
in the new version 5.0.
The presented visualizations certainly provide a lot of information, at least for the formation of
hypotheses. it is obvious that some of these hypotheses, in principle, could not have appeared without
visualization, similar to the one shown in the screenshots of the model views made in the eEd
environment.
Figure 9: Visualization for a directed graph for the IPMA ICB 4.0 model in the yEd environment in the
Radial Layout view for Weighted Centrality (Distance From Center) for structural model changes
Figure 10: Visualization for a directed graph for the IPMA ICB 4.0 model in the yEd environment in
the Radial Layout view for Centrality (Distance From Center) during structural model changes
224
Figure 11: Visualization for a directed graph for the IPMA ICB 4.0 model in the yEd environment in
the Tree - Baloon Layout - Weighted Center Root - Organic view during structural model changes
6. Conclusion
The presented approach to the use of graphical representations, according to the authors, can be
used in the analysis of any other complex systems, where a sufficiently large number of mutually
influencing elements can be identified. In order for the analysis of such systems to be as effective as
possible, it is necessary to use the appropriate systems that automate the work on the primary
processing and visual presentation of information. Such an effective tool for an analyst's work can be
software with functionality similar to the example of using the yEd product presented in the article.
Perhaps this approach will allow a more “instrumental” approach to assessing the importance of
individual elements, incl. by modeling situations such as “excluding” a number of nodes or edges
(elements of the studied systems or connections between them), and “adding” (predicting the need for
a real but previously unidentified element or a connection between identified elements), which will
allow a more professional and objectively approach the assessment of complex systems.
In particular, these are hypotheses about the special role of such elements of the model as 4
("Power and interests"), 6 ("Self-reflection and self-management") and 16 ("Project design"), which
are "centers" for their "subsystems", which are the corresponding blocks of the model under study,
even if the initial model did not contain such a hierarchical representation. On the other hand, it may
still be worthwhile to consider such an element as 10 ("Leadership") separately from any of any block
of the model, and to single out its "integrating" and "connecting" role for the entire model. It is also
worth taking more seriously an element such as 4, which, despite its "low weight", is still the "center"
of the entire system, if we consider it from a topological point of view. In addition, the list of
hypotheses can be supplemented with the possible need to revise the existing taxonomy when
assessing competencies directly and when conducting certification according to this model — towards
revising the "weights" of each of the blocks based on the analysis of the structure of links. Moreover,
I would like to emphasize once again that all these hypotheses are not at all obvious and owe their
emergence exclusively to the ability to conduct a visual analysis of the system under study using free
software available today to any computer user.
7. Acknowledgment
Gratitude of the Ukrainian Project Management Association for the possibility of using in practice
IPMA standards for assessing the competencies of project managers, as well as BNTU (Belarus) and
225
Project Management Bureau LLC (Ukraine) for using the competency models developed by the
authors in the design and implementation of educational programs.
8. References
[1]. IPMA, 2019. URL: https://www.ipma.world/
[2]. PMI, 2020. URL: https://www.pmi.org/
[3]. Caupin, G., Knöpfel, H., Koch, G., Pannenbäcker, K., Pérez-Polo, F., & Seabury, C.
Comparison between ICB and other project mangement standards. Bilbao: ICB Revision Project,
(2004).
[4]. Yao, C. C., Siang L. F., Yih C. H. Comparing and Identifying the Similarities and Differences of
Global Project Management Philosophies, Innovation and management, (2016): 1677.
[5]. Crawford, L. Competition, comparison, collaboration–mapping a pathway through project
management standards. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol 74, (2013): 1-9.
[6]. Ghosh, S. et al. Enhance PMBOK® by comparing it with P2M, ICB, PRINCE2, APM and
Scrum project management standards. PM World Today, vol. 14, issue 1, (2012): 1 77.
[7]. Kössler, M. Project Management Standards and Approaches. A systematic Comparison. Manuel
Kössler, (2013). URL:
https://diglib.tugraz.at/download.php?id=576a76d6b24fa&location=browse
[8]. Qureshi, Sheheryar Mohsin, & Chang, Wook Kang. Analysing the organizational factors of
project complexity usingstructural equation modelling. International Journal of
Project Management, 33 (1), (2015):165-176. doi:
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.006
[9]. Wen, Qi, & Maoshan, Qiang. Coordination and Knowledge Sharing in Construction Project-
Based Organization: A Longitudinal Structural Equation Model Analysis. Automation in
Construction, 72 (3), (2016): 309-320. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.06.002
[10]. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. PMBOK® guide. Sixth Edition.
(2016). Project Management Institute Inc.
[11]. PMCDF Project Manager Competency. Development Framework. Third edition. (2017).
Project Management Institute.
[12]. S. D. Bushuyev, B. Yu. Kozyr. Hybridization of methodologies for managing infrastructure
projects and programs. Bulletin of Odessa National Maritime University, vol. 61,
(2020): 187-207.
[13]. Bertalanffy, L. Von. History and status of the general theory of systems. System researches:
Yearbook, Moscow : Nauka, (1973): 20–37.
[14]. V. Morozov, O. Mezentseva and M. Proskurin. Trainable Neural Networks Modelling for a
Forecasting of Start-Up Product Development. IEEE Third International Conference on Data
Stream Mining & Processing, (2020): 55-60, doi: 10.1109/DSMP47368.2020.9204264.
[15]. Excel, (2020). URL: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/excel
[16]. yEd, (2020). URL: https://www.yworks.com/products/yed
[17]. IPMA standards – Individual Competence Baseline (ICB4), (2019). URL:
https://www.ipma.world/individuals/standard/
[18]. Lukianov, D., Mazhei, K., Gogunskii, V. Transformation of the International Project
Management Association Project Managers Individual Competencies Model. IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Trends in Information Theory, (2019): 506-512
[19]. Lukianov D. et al. Analysis of the structural models of competencies in project management.
Technology audit and production reserves, vol.2 (2), (2017): 4-11.
[20]. Lukianov, D., Bespanskaya-Paulenko, K., Gogunskii, V., Kolesnikov, O., Moskaliuk, A., &
Dmitrenko, K. Development of the markov model of a project as a system of role
communications in a team. Eastern-Еuropean journal of enterprise technologies, Vol. 3, Issue 3,
(2017): 21-28.
[21]. Sherstiuk O., Kolesnikov O., Lukianov D. Team Behaviour Model as a Tool for Determining
the Project Development Trajectory. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Trends in
Information Theory, (2019): 496-500.
[22]. R. Trach, S. Bushuyev. Analysis communication network of construction project participants,
Przegląd Naukowy Inżynieria i Kształtowanie Środowiska, (2020).
226