mirror of
https://github.com/OFFIS-ESC/constellation-analyzer
synced 2026-01-27 07:43:41 +00:00
35 KiB
35 KiB
Temporal & Scenario Analysis - Visual Examples
This document provides concrete visual examples of how the temporal and scenario analysis features should look and behave.
Example 1: Organizational Evolution (Temporal Analysis)
Scenario
A company tracking how its organizational structure changed during a merger over 12 months.
Timeline
2023 January → April → July → October → 2024 January
(Pre-Merger) (Integration) (Consolidation) (Restructuring) (New Structure)
State 1: January 2023 (Pre-Merger)
Graph:
Company A: 25 employees
- CEO (Alice)
- 3 Department Heads
- 21 Team Members
Company B: 18 employees
- CEO (Bob)
- 2 Department Heads
- 15 Team Members
No relations between companies yet
State 2: April 2023 (Integration)
Graph:
Merged Company: 43 employees
- Co-CEOs (Alice + Bob)
- 5 Department Heads (3 from A, 2 from B)
- Joint steering committee (6 people)
- 36 Team Members
New relations:
- Cross-company collaboration edges
- Reporting structure changes
State 3: July 2023 (Consolidation)
Graph:
Merged Company: 40 employees (-3 departures)
- Single CEO (Alice, Bob moves to advisory)
- 4 Department Heads (1 department merged)
- 35 Team Members
Changes:
- Removed: 3 actors (departures)
- Modified: Bob's role and relations
- Added: Advisory board node
State 4: October 2023 (Restructuring)
Graph:
Merged Company: 42 employees (+2 new hires)
- CEO (Alice)
- 4 Department Heads (reshuffled)
- 2 new leadership roles
- 36 Team Members
Changes:
- Added: 2 new strategic roles
- Modified: Several reporting relationships
- Removed: Steering committee (integration complete)
State 5: January 2024 (New Structure)
Graph:
Merged Company: 45 employees (+3 new hires)
- CEO (Alice)
- 4 Department Heads (stable)
- Established matrix structure
- 40 Team Members
Changes:
- Added: Cross-functional teams (new edge types)
- Added: 3 new hires
- Stabilized structure
Comparison: State 1 vs State 5
Visual Diff:
Green (Added):
- 2 new leadership roles
- 5 new team members
- 30+ cross-functional collaboration edges
- Matrix structure edges
Red (Removed):
- Bob as Co-CEO (moved to advisory)
- 1 department head (consolidation)
- 3 departed employees
- Company B as separate entity
Yellow (Modified):
- Alice: Title change (Co-CEO → CEO)
- Bob: Role change (Co-CEO → Advisor)
- Multiple reporting relationship changes
- 5 department heads repositioned in hierarchy
Summary Statistics:
- Total actors: 43 → 45 (+2, +4.7%)
- Total relations: 68 → 112 (+44, +64.7%)
- Network density: 0.037 → 0.056 (+51%)
- Average connections per person: 3.2 → 5.0 (+56%)
Actor Journey: Bob
Timeline visualization:
Jan 2023 Apr 2023 Jul 2023 Oct 2023 Jan 2024
● ● ● ● ●
CEO Co-CEO Advisor Advisor Advisor
Company B Merged Co Merged Co Merged Co Merged Co
Relations:
17 direct reports → 20 → 4 → 2 → 2
Type: Leadership → Leadership → Advisory → Advisory → Advisory
Position: Center → Center → Periphery → Periphery → Periphery
Key Changes:
Apr 2023: Became Co-CEO, gained cross-company relations
Jul 2023: Transitioned to advisor, lost most direct reports
Oct 2023+: Stable advisory role
Example 2: Therapeutic Progress (Temporal Analysis)
Scenario
Family therapist tracking a family constellation across 10 therapy sessions.
Timeline
Session 1 → Session 3 → Session 5 → Session 7 → Session 10
(Intake) (Early Work) (Breakthrough) (Integration) (Closure)
State 1: Session 1 (Intake)
Graph:
Family Members:
- Mother (Sarah)
- Father (John)
- Daughter (Emma, 16)
- Son (Michael, 12)
Relations:
- Sarah ←conflict→ John (high intensity, red)
- Sarah ←protective→ Emma (strong, dashed)
- John ←distant→ Michael (weak, dotted)
- Emma ←tension→ Michael (medium, orange)
Notes: "High conflict between parents, children taking sides,
triangulation patterns evident"
State 2: Session 3 (Early Work)
Changes from Session 1:
Modified:
- Sarah ↔ John: Conflict intensity reduced (high → medium)
- Sarah → Emma: Protective edge slightly weakened
Added:
- John ↔ Emma: New communication edge (weak)
Notes: "Parents beginning to communicate more directly,
Emma less involved in parental conflict"
State 3: Session 5 (Breakthrough)
Changes from Session 3:
Modified:
- Sarah ↔ John: Conflict edge changed to "communication" type
- John → Michael: Distant edge strengthened (engagement improving)
Added:
- Family unit node (representing whole family identity)
- All members connected to family unit
Notes: "Major breakthrough - parents able to discuss issues
without involving children. Family identity emerging."
State 4: Session 7 (Integration)
Changes from Session 5:
Modified:
- Sarah ↔ John: Communication edge strengthened
- Emma ↔ Michael: Tension edge changed to "sibling bond"
Added:
- John → Emma: Communication edge strengthened
- Sarah → Michael: New supportive edge
Notes: "Parents functioning as parental team. Sibling
relationship improving. Cross-generational boundaries
clearer."
State 5: Session 10 (Closure)
Changes from Session 7:
Modified:
- Sarah ↔ John: Strong partnership edge (blue, solid)
- All parent-child edges balanced and healthy
- Sibling edge strong and positive
Removed:
- No conflict edges remaining
- Protective/distant edges normalized
Notes: "Family system stabilized. Healthy boundaries,
effective communication, age-appropriate relationships.
Ready for termination."
Animated Visualization
Frame-by-frame description:
Frame 1 (Session 1):
- Actors positioned with visible tension
- Conflict edge pulsing in red
- Protective edge thick and binding
Frame 10 (Session 3):
- Conflict edge fading to orange
- New communication line appearing (fade in)
- Emma moving slightly away from protective orbit
Frame 20 (Session 5):
- Family unit node appearing in center (fade in)
- Connections to family unit growing out
- All actors shifting toward center
Frame 30 (Session 7):
- Sibling edge morphing from orange to blue
- Cross-connections strengthening
- Network becoming more interconnected
Frame 40 (Session 10):
- All edges now healthy colors (blue, green)
- Balanced positioning
- Strong sense of unity and connection
Actor Journey: Emma
Timeline:
Session 1 Session 3 Session 5 Session 7 Session 10
● ● ● ● ●
Role:
Parentified Transitioning De-triangulated Teen Member Healthy Teen
Position:
Between Moving out Periphery Appropriate Age-appropriate
parents of middle of conflict teen role teen role
Key Relations:
Mother: Protective, enmeshed → Lessening → Normal parental → Healthy
Father: Distant → Emerging → Communicating → Connected
Brother: Tension → Neutral → Improving → Sibling bond
Notes:
Session 1-3: Caught in parental conflict, taking mother's side
Session 5: Breakthrough allowed her to step out of middle
Session 7+: Re-established as teenager, not parent-proxy
Example 3: Strategic Planning (Scenario Analysis)
Scenario
Tech startup exploring three growth strategies over 2 years.
Current State (Branching Point)
Graph:
Team: 15 people
- 1 CEO
- 2 Co-founders (CTO, CPO)
- 3 Engineers
- 2 Designers
- 3 Sales
- 2 Marketing
- 2 Support
Product: Single core product
Market: Single vertical
Scenario A: Rapid Expansion
Branch: "Strategy A - Rapid Expansion"
Assumptions:
- $5M Series A funding secured
- Aggressive hiring
- Market demand high
- Risk: Operational complexity
Year 1:
Team: 35 people (+20)
- Added: 2 managers, 8 engineers, 4 sales, 3 marketing, 3 support
- Added: Product expansion team (5 people)
- Added: VP Sales node
Year 2:
Team: 65 people (+30)
- Added: 3 managers, 15 engineers, 7 sales, 5 marketing
- Added: International team (8 people)
- Added: VP Engineering, VP Marketing nodes
- Network density: High complexity
Outcome Analysis:
Strengths: Market capture, rapid growth, multiple products
Risks: Management overhead, coordination challenges, burn rate
Scenario B: Focused Growth
Branch: "Strategy B - Focused Growth"
Assumptions:
- $2M seed extension
- Selective hiring
- Deep vertical penetration
- Risk: Market saturation
Year 1:
Team: 22 people (+7)
- Added: 3 engineers, 2 sales, 2 support
- Focus: Core product improvement
- Strengthened: Sales/customer relations
Year 2:
Team: 30 people (+8)
- Added: 4 engineers, 2 sales, 2 marketing
- Added: Customer success team (3 people)
- Network density: Moderate, well-connected
Outcome Analysis:
Strengths: Product excellence, customer loyalty, sustainable growth
Risks: Slower growth, single product dependency
Scenario C: Pivot to Platform
Branch: "Strategy C - Platform Pivot"
Assumptions:
- $3M funding
- Product architecture change
- Partner ecosystem
- Risk: Technical debt, market confusion
Year 1:
Team: 28 people (+13)
- Added: Platform team (8 people: 5 engineers, 2 product, 1 architect)
- Added: Partner relations (2 people)
- Added: Developer advocacy (2 people)
- Restructured: Product org → Platform + Ecosystem
Year 2:
Team: 42 people (+14)
- Added: Partner ecosystem (external nodes)
- Added: Developer community node
- Added: Integration team (5 people)
- Network: Extended beyond company (partners)
Outcome Analysis:
Strengths: Ecosystem leverage, network effects, scalability
Risks: Complex coordination, dependency on partners
Comparison: Scenario A vs B vs C (Year 2)
Side-by-side visualization:
┌──────────────────┬──────────────────┬──────────────────┐
│ Scenario A │ Scenario B │ Scenario C │
│ Rapid Expansion │ Focused Growth │ Platform Pivot │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────┼──────────────────┤
│ Team: 65 people │ Team: 30 people │ Team: 42 people │
│ 5 VPs │ 3 Managers │ 4 Managers │
│ High complexity │ Moderate density │ Extended network │
│ │ │ │
│ [Dense graph] │ [Tight graph] │ [Extended graph] │
│ Many nodes │ Fewer nodes │ External nodes │
│ Hierarchical │ Flat structure │ Hub-and-spoke │
│ │ │ │
│ Burn: High │ Burn: Low │ Burn: Medium │
│ Revenue: High │ Revenue: Medium │ Revenue: Variable│
│ Risk: Medium │ Risk: Low │ Risk: High │
└──────────────────┴──────────────────┴──────────────────┘
Comparison metrics:
Metric Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Team Size 65 30 42
Management Layers 4 2 3
Network Density 0.089 0.156 0.112*
Avg Connections/Person 5.8 4.7 6.3*
External Connections 5 8 24
Products 3 1 Platform
Revenue Potential $15M $5M $8M
Risk Score 7/10 3/10 8/10
* Including external partner nodes
Actor Journey: CTO (Across All Scenarios)
Scenario A (Rapid Expansion):
Current → Year 1 → Year 2
Role:
CTO (Hands-on) → VP Engineering → CTO (Strategic)
Direct Reports:
3 → 8 → 23
Focus:
Architecture → Team building → Organization leadership
Network Position:
Central-technical → Central-management → Central-strategic
Note: Increasingly removed from code, focus on scaling organization
Scenario B (Focused Growth):
Current → Year 1 → Year 2
Role:
CTO (Hands-on) → CTO (Hands-on) → CTO (Technical Lead)
Direct Reports:
3 → 6 → 10
Focus:
Architecture → Product excellence → Technical depth
Network Position:
Central-technical → Central-technical → Central-technical
Note: Remains hands-on, deep technical involvement, leads by example
Scenario C (Platform Pivot):
Current → Year 1 → Year 2
Role:
CTO (Hands-on) → CTO + Chief Architect → CTO (Ecosystem)
Direct Reports:
3 → 8 → 12
Focus:
Product → Platform architecture → External integrations
Network Position:
Central-technical → Central-hub → Hub-to-external
Note: Shifts to platform thinking, manages internal + external relations
Comparison visualization:
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Year 2: (Strategic) (Technical) (Ecosystem)
Hands-on ●──────────●──────────●──────────● ●──────────●
Code: None Moderate Some
Team Size: ●──────────●──────────●──────────● ●──────────●
Huge (23) Small (10) Medium (12)
External ●──────────●──────────●──────────● ●──────────●
Focus: Low Low High
Stress: ●──────────●──────────●──────────● ●──────────●
High Low Medium
Job ●──────────●──────────●──────────● ●──────────●
Satisfaction: Medium High Medium
Example 4: Timeline Scrubber Interaction
Visual Design
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Timeline: Company Evolution │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ↓ (You are here) │
│ ●═══●═══●═══●═══●═══●═══●═══●═══●═══●═══●═══● │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ J F M A M J J A S O N D │
│ a e a p a u u u e c o e │
│ n b r r y n l g p t v c │
│ │
│ ◀───────────────────────────────────────────────────────▶ │
│ [Drag to scrub through timeline] │
│ │
│ Speed: [◀] [1x] [▶] Loop: [ ] Auto-play: [ ] │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Interaction States
Hover over state marker:
● ← Marker highlights
╱╲
╱ ╲ Tooltip appears:
┌────────────────┐
│ April 2023 │
│ Q2 Review │
│ 12 actors │
│ 18 relations │
│ Click to view │
└────────────────┘
Click state marker:
Before: After:
●───●───●───● ●───●───●───●
↑ ↑
(You are here) (You are here)
Graph updates with transition animation:
- Actors fade out/in
- Actors move to new positions
- Relations appear/disappear
- Duration: 500ms
Drag scrubber:
Dragging:
●═══●═══●═══●═══●
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
(scrubbing through intermediate frames)
Graph continuously updates
Shows interpolated states
Smooth animation at 30fps
Multi-select for comparison:
Click first state (Shift+Click):
●═══●═══●═══●═══●
✓ (selected)
Click second state:
●═══●═══●═══●═══●
✓ ✓
└───────┘
(Range highlighted)
Compare button appears:
[⚖ Compare Selected]
Example 5: Diff Visualization Modes
Mode 1: Overlay Mode
Original graph (State A) shown in gray/muted colors
Changes overlaid with highlighting:
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Alice │
│ (gray) │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ ┌─┴─┐ │
│ │ │ │
│ Bob Carol │
│ (gray)(gray) │
│ │
│ NEW! │
│ ┌─────┐ │
│ │ Dave │ ← Green border │
│ └─────┘ │
│ │ │
│ │ ← Green edge │
│ │ │
│ Carol │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
Legend:
■ Green = Added
■ Red = Removed (shown faded)
■ Yellow = Modified
■ Gray = Unchanged
Mode 2: Side-by-Side Mode
┌──────────────────────┬──────────────────────┐
│ State A (Before) │ State B (After) │
├──────────────────────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │
│ Alice │ Alice │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ┌─┴─┐ │ ┌─┴─┐ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Bob Carol │ Bob Carol │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Dave │
│ │ (green) │
│ │ │
│ Actors: 3 │ Actors: 4 │
│ Relations: 2 │ Relations: 3 │
└──────────────────────┴──────────────────────┘
Synchronized: Zoom and pan linked between both views
Mode 3: Diff List View
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Changes: State A → State B │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ADDED (1 actor, 1 relation) │
│ ✓ Dave (Person) │
│ ✓ Carol → Dave (Collaboration) │
│ │
│ REMOVED (0) │
│ (none) │
│ │
│ MODIFIED (1 actor) │
│ ○ Carol │
│ • Position: (120, 80) → (180, 100) │
│ • Connections: 1 → 2 │
│ │
│ UNCHANGED (2 actors, 2 relations) │
│ [Collapse to hide] │
│ │
│ Summary: │
│ Total changes: 3 │
│ Actors affected: 2 (50%) │
│ Relations affected: 1 (33%) │
│ Network density change: +15% │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Mode 4: Animated Diff
Animation sequence (10 frames, 2 seconds total):
Frame 0 (State A):
Alice, Bob, Carol visible
Frame 3:
Dave fades in (opacity 0.3)
Frame 5:
Dave fully visible
New edge starts growing from Carol
Frame 7:
Edge fully connected
Carol moves to new position (interpolated)
Frame 10 (State B):
Final state
Highlighting fades out over 1 second
Visual cues during animation:
- New elements pulse briefly
- Removed elements fade with red glow
- Modified elements highlighted during change
Example 6: Actor Journey Visualization
Journey Timeline View
Actor: Sarah Chen
Timeframe: January 2023 - December 2023
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep │
│ ●──────●──────●──────●──────●──────●──────●──────●──────● │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Eng Eng Sr.Eng Sr.Eng Lead Lead Manager Manager Manager│
│ │
│ Connections: 3→3→4→5→6→7→8→10→12 │
│ │
│ Key Events: │
│ Mar: Promotion to Senior Engineer │
│ May: Promoted to Team Lead │
│ Jul: Became Engineering Manager │
│ Sep: Team expanded significantly │
│ │
│ Property Changes: │
│ • Title changed: 3 times │
│ • Direct reports: 0→0→2→2→4→4→8→8→8 │
│ • Position: Center-left → Center (more central) │
│ │
│ Relationship Evolution: │
│ • Peer relationships: 3→3→4→4→3→3→2→2→1 (declining) │
│ • Managerial relations: 0→0→0→2→4→4→8→10→12 (growing) │
│ • Cross-team relations: 0→0→1→2→3→5→6→8→10 (growing) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Journey Graph View
Visual representation of Sarah's network evolution:
January (Starting point):
[Sarah]
│
┌────┼────┐
│ │ │
[Tom][Ann][Lee]
(peers)
May (Became Team Lead):
[Sarah] ← Now has direct reports
│
┌────┼────┬────┐
│ │ │ │
[Tom][Ann][Lee][New]
↓ ↓
[Jr1][Jr2]
September (Engineering Manager):
[Sarah]
│
┌────────┼────────┐
│ │ │
[Lead1][Lead2][Lead3]
│ │ │
┌─┼─┐ ┌─┼─┐ ┌─┼─┐
[T][T] [T][T] [T][T]
Network metrics:
Betweenness centrality: 0.05 → 0.15 → 0.42 (×8.4 increase)
Degree centrality: 0.12 → 0.18 → 0.35 (×2.9 increase)
Closeness centrality: 0.25 → 0.32 → 0.48 (×1.9 increase)
Example 7: Scenario Branching Visualization
Tree View
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Scenario Tree: Strategic Planning │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ Current State │
│ (Jan 2024) │
│ ● │
│ │ │
│ ┌──────────────┼──────────────┐ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C │
│ (Rapid Expand) (Focused) (Platform) │
│ ● ● ● │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ┌────┼────┐ ┌────┴────┐ ┌────┴────┐ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q2 Q3 │
│ ● ● ● ● ● ● ● │
│ │ │ │
│ Q4-A1 │ │
│ ● ┌────┴────┐ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ Q4-A2 Q4-C1 Q4-C2 │
│ ● ● ● │
│ │
│ Colors: │
│ ● Blue = Scenario A branch │
│ ● Green = Scenario B branch │
│ ● Purple = Scenario C branch │
│ ● Gray = Current reality │
│ │
│ [Expand All] [Collapse All] [Compare Scenarios] │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Timeline View with Branches
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ ●─────●─────● Scenario A │
│ / Q2 Q3 Q4 (Rapid) │
│ / │
│ ●────────Current────────● │
│ Jan 2024 │ │
│ \ │
│ ●────● Scenario B │
│ Q2 Q3 (Focused) │
│ │
│ ●─────●─────●─────● Scenario C │
│ / Q2 Q3 Q4-C1 Q4-C2 (Platform) │
│ / │
│ / │
│ ● │
│ │
│ Hover on branch to see: │
│ • Scenario assumptions │
│ • Key metrics comparison │
│ • Probability/confidence │
│ • Notes and rationale │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Example 8: Presentation Mode
Full-Screen Slideshow
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ [F to toggle fullscreen] │
│ │
│ ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Organizational Evolution │ │
│ │ 2023-2024 │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ [Graph Visual] │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ Key Insights: │ │
│ │ • Team grew by 80% over 12 months │ │
│ │ • Network density increased significantly │ │
│ │ • Leadership structure matured │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ State 3 of 5 │ │
│ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ [◀ Previous] [⏸ Pause] [▶ Next] [Esc Exit] │
│ │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Navigation:
- Arrow keys to navigate
- Space to play/pause
- Esc to exit presentation mode
- Number keys to jump to slide
- 'R' to restart from beginning
Summary
These examples demonstrate:
- Temporal Evolution: How organizations, families, and systems change over time
- Scenario Exploration: Comparing alternative futures with different assumptions
- Visual Comparison: Multiple ways to see and understand differences
- Actor Tracking: Following individuals through changes
- Interactive Timeline: Scrubbing, clicking, and animating through states
- Presentation: Telling compelling stories with data
All visualizations should be:
- Interactive: Click, drag, hover for more information
- Animated: Smooth transitions between states
- Informative: Rich metadata and context
- Exportable: Save as images, videos, or reports
- Responsive: Work on different screen sizes
The goal is to make temporal and scenario analysis intuitive, visual, and powerful for storytelling and analysis.