Abstract:
An educational institution (also referred as a university) is structurally modeled using a university model graph. A key benefit of modeling of the educational institution is to help in an introspective analysis by the educational institute. Specifically, the model is quite beneficial for undertaking the analysis of the various issues faced by the educational institute. A what-if scenario requires the model to be suitably changed to address the issue under consideration and the changed model needs to be analyzed to determine how the issue could be handled. A system and method for what-if scenario analysis based on the university model graph is discussed.

Description:
[0001]    1. A reference is made to the applicants&#39; earlier Indian patent application titled “System and Method for an Influence based Structural Analysis of a University” with the application number 1269/CHE2010 filed on 6 May 2010. 
         [0002]    2. A reference is made to another of the applicants&#39; earlier Indian patent application titled “System and Method for Constructing a University Model Graph” with an application number 1809/CHE/2010 and filing date of 28 Jun., 2010. 
         [0003]    3. A reference is made to yet another of the applicants&#39; earlier Indian patent application titled “System and Method for University Model Graph based Visualization” with the application number 1848/CHE/2010 dated 30 Jun. 2010. 
       FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
       [0004]    The present invention relates to the analysis of the information about a university in general, and more particularly, the analysis of the university based on the structural representations. Still more particularly, the present invention relates to a system and method for what-if analysis based on a model graph associated with the university. 
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0005]    A what-if analysis is typically a hypothetical analysis in which the parameters of a system being analyzed are hypothetically changed so as to determine the new system behavior. Such an analysis helps in determining what happens if the system parameters change in a particular manner. Again, typically, this is done in a simulated environment that uses a model of the system being what-if analyzed. What-if analysis is common and has been used to obtain practical insights in many domains: financial, industrial, process, and business domains to name just a few. 
         [0006]    An Educational Institution (EI) (also referred as University) comprises of a variety of entities: students, faculty members, departments, divisions, labs, libraries, special interest groups, etc. 
         [0007]    University portals provide information about the universities and act as a window to the external world. A typical portal of a university provides information related to (a) Goals, Objectives, Historical Information, and Significant Milestones, of the university; (b) Profile of the Labs, Departments, and Divisions; (c) Profile of the Faculty Members; (d) Significant Achievements; (e) Admission Procedures; (f) Information for Students; (g) Library; (h) On- and Off-Campus Facilities; (i) Research; (j) External Collaborations; (k) Information for Collaborators; (I) News and Events; (m) Alumni; and (n) Information Resources. The educational institutions are positioned in a very competitive environment and it is a constant endeavor of the management of the educational institution to ensure to be ahead of the competition. This calls for a critical analysis of the overall functioning of the university and help suggest improvements so as enhance the overall strength aspects and overcome the weaknesses. Consider as a typical scenario involving an allocation of funds to the various laboratories of the institution: it makes sense to allocate funds to those labs that provide opportunities for more faculty members to undertake their research work; this in turn would involve more students as research assistants; this double headed improvement leads to the overall enhanced assessment of the institution. Similarly, consider a scenario of enhancing the overall assessment of a faculty member: in this case, encouraging the faculty member to attend a technical conference and present their work would help enhance the influencing factors with respect to both peer faculty members and students. These illustrative scenarios call for what-if analysis based on a model of the institution to obtain better and practical insights into the institution. 
       DESCRIPTION OF RELATED ART 
       [0008]    U.S. Pat. No. 7,606,165 to Qiu; Lili (Bellevue, Wash.), Bahl; Paramvir (Sammamish, Wash.), Zhou; Lidong (Sunnyvale, Calif.), Rao; Ananth Rajagopala (El Cerrito, Calif.) for “What-if analysis for network diagnostics” (issued on Oct. 20, 2009 and assigned to Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, Wash.)) describes a network troubleshooting framework for performing what-if analysis of wired and wireless networks. 
         [0009]    United States Patent Application 20100198958 titled “Real-Time Feedback for Policies for Computing System Management” by Cannon; David M.; (Tucson, Ariz.); Humphries; Marshall L.; (Tucson, Ariz.) (filed on Apr. 14, 2010 and assigned to International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, N.Y.) describes a method for providing real-time feedback regarding the effect of applying a policy definition used for management in a computing system. 
         [0010]    “Adding Change Impact Analysis to the Formal Verification of C Programs” by Autexier; Serge and Luth; Christoph (appeared in Dominique Mery and Stephan Merz (Eds.), Proceedings 8th 
         [0011]    International Conference on integrated Formal Methods (IFM2010), LNCS, Nancy, France, Springer, October, 2010) describes a framework based on document graph model to handle changes to programs and specifications efficiently as part of formal software verification. 
         [0012]    “Modularity-Driven Clustering of Dynamic Graphs” by Gorke; Robert, Maillard; Pascal, Staudt; Christian, and Wagner; Dorothea (appeared in Experimental Algorithms, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2010, Volume 6049/2010, 436-448) describes graph analysis algorithms for efficiently maintaining a modularity based clustering of a graph that changes dynamically. 
         [0013]    “A Graph-Theory Framework for Evaluating Landscape Connectivity and Conservation Planning” by Minor; Emily and Urban; Dean (appeared in Conservation Biology (Wiley-Blackwell), Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 297-307, April 2008) describes a graph-theoretic approach to characterize multiple aspects of landscape connectivity in a habitat network and uses the notions of graph measures such as compartmentalization and clustering for the purposes of analysis. 
         [0014]    The known systems do not address the issue of what-if analysis based on a comprehensive modeling of an educational institution at various levels in order to be able to provide for introspective analysis. The present invention provides for a system and method for what-if analysis based on a university model graph of the educational institution. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0015]    The primary objective of the invention is to achieve what-if analysis based on a university model graph (UMG) associated with an educational institution to help the educational institution in an introspective analysis. 
         [0016]    One aspect of the present invention is to analyze a what-if analysis request and to derive a revised optimized university model graph. 
         [0017]    Another aspect of the present invention is to interpret the revised optimized university model graph and generate recommendations. 
         [0018]    Yet another aspect of the present invention is to find an optimal sub-UMG based on the university model graph. 
         [0019]    Another aspect of the present invention is to minimally change to tune the university model graph so as achieve the set base scores of the select nodes of the university model graph. 
         [0020]    Yet another aspect of the present invention is to determine the best set of entities and entity-instances among a few sets based on the university model graph. 
         [0021]    Another aspect of the present invention is to select a sub-UMG and tune the sub-UMG. 
         [0022]    Yet another aspect of the invention is to achieve the tuning of the university model graph based on a set of influence values. 
         [0023]    Another aspect of the present invention is to achieve combining of two or more university model graphs.
       In a preferred embodiment the present invention provides a system for the what-if analysis of a plurality of what-if requests based on a university model graph (UMG) of a university to generate a plurality of recommendations based on a plurality of assessments and a plurality of influence values contained in a university model graph database to help in undertaking introspective analysis of said university, said university having a plurality of entities and a plurality of entity-instances,   wherein each of said plurality of entity-instances is an instance of an entity of said plurality of entities, and said university model graph having a plurality of models, a plurality of abstract nodes, a plurality of nodes, a plurality of abstract edges, a plurality of semi-abstract edges, and a plurality of edges,   with each abstract node of said plurality of abstract nodes corresponding to an entity of said plurality of entities,   each node of said plurality of nodes corresponding to an entity-instance of said plurality of entity-instances, and   each abstract node of said plurality of abstract nodes is associated with a model of said plurality of models, and   a node of said plurality of nodes is connected to an abstract node of said plurality of abstract nodes through an abstract edge of said plurality of abstract edges, wherein said node represents an instance of an entity associated with said abstract node and said node is associated with an instantiated model and a base score, wherein said instantiated model is based on a model associated with said abstract node, and said base score is computed based on said instantiated model and is a value between 0 and 1,   a source abstract node of said plurality of abstract nodes is connected to a destination abstract node of said plurality of abstract nodes by a directed abstract edge of said plurality of abstract edges and said directed abstract edge is associated with an entity influence value of said plurality of influence values, wherein said entity influence value is a value between −1 and +1;   a source node of said plurality of nodes is connected to a destination node of said plurality of nodes by a directed edge of said plurality of edges and said directed edge is associated with an influence value of said plurality influence values, wherein said influence value is a value between −1 and +1;   a source node of said plurality of nodes is connected to a destination abstract node of said plurality of abstract nodes by a directed semi-abstract edge of said plurality of semi-abstract edges and said directed semi-abstract edge is associated with an entity-instance-entity-influence value of said plurality influence values, wherein said entity-instance-entity-influence value is a value between −1 and +1; and   a source abstract node of said plurality of abstract nodes is connected to a destination node of said plurality of nodes by a directed semi-abstract edge of said plurality of semi-abstract edges and said directed semi-abstract edge is associated with an entity-entity-instance-influence value of said plurality influence values, wherein said entity-entity-instance-influence value is a value between −1 and + 1, said system comprising,  
           means for deriving of a revised optimized university model graph based on a what-if request of said plurality of what-if requests and said UMG; and   means for generating of a recommendation of said plurality of recommendations based on said revised optimized university model graph;   wherein said means for deriving of said revised optimized university model graph further comprises of:   means for generating of an optimal sub-UMG based on said UMG and assigning of said optimal sub-UMG as said revised optimized university model graph;   means for generating of a tuned UMG based on said UMG and a plurality of select nodes, wherein each select node of said plurality of select nodes is a part of said plurality of abstract nodes or a part of said plurality of bodes, and is associated with an expected base score, and assigning of said tuned UMG as said revised optimized university model graph;   means for selecting of a best set of a plurality of sets based on said UMG, wherein each set of said plurality of sets comprises of a plurality of selected abstract nodes of said plurality of abstract nodes and a plurality of selected nodes of said plurality of nodes, and assigning of said best set as said revised optimized university model graph;   means for local analysis of said UMG to generate a local sub-UMG;   means for generating of a tuned sub-UMG based on said local sub-UMG, and assigning of said tuned sub-UMG as said revised optimized university model graph;   means for selecting of a local best set of a plurality of local sets based on said local sub-UMG, wherein each set of said plurality of local sets comprises of a plurality of selected abstract nodes of said plurality of abstract nodes and a plurality of selected nodes of said plurality of nodes, and assigning of said best set as said revised optimized university model graph;   means for generating of an influence tuned UMG based on said UMG and a plurality of select node pairs, wherein a node pair of said plurality of node pairs comprises of a node  1  of said node pair is a part of said plurality of abstract nodes or said plurality of nodes, a node  2  of said node pair is a part of said plurality of abstract nodes or said plurality of nodes, and assigning of said influence tuned UMG as said revised optimized university model graph;   means for generating of an influence tuned UMG  2  based on said UMG, and assigning of said influence tuned UMG  2  as said revised optimized university model graph; and   means for combining of a plurality of additional university model graphs and said UMG to generate a combined UMG, and assigning of said combined UMG as said revised optimized university model graph.   
               
 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0046]      FIG. 1  provides an overview of EI Analysis System. 
           [0047]      FIG. 1A  provides an illustrative University Model Graph. 
           [0048]      FIG. 1B  provides the elements of University Model Graph. 
           [0049]      FIG. 2  provides a Partial List of Entities of a University. 
           [0050]      FIG. 3  provides illustrative What-If Scenarios. 
           [0051]      FIG. 4  provides illustrative Recommendations. 
           [0052]      FIG. 4A  provides additional illustrative Recommendations. 
           [0053]      FIG. 5  provides an overview of Generic UMG Analysis Techniques. 
           [0054]      FIG. 6  provides an overview of Approach for Technique 1. 
           [0055]      FIG. 6A  provides an Approach for Technique 1. 
           [0056]      FIG. 7  provides an Approach for Technique 2. 
           [0057]      FIG. 8  provides an Approach for Technique 3. 
           [0058]      FIG. 9  provides an Approach for Technique 4. 
           [0059]      FIG. 10  provides an Approach for Technique 5. 
           [0060]      FIG. 10A  provides additional information on Approach for Technique 5. 
           [0061]      FIG. 11  provides an Approach for Technique 6. 
           [0062]      FIG. 12  provides an overview of Generating Recommendations. 
           [0063]      FIG. 12A  provides additional information related to Generating of Recommendations. 
           [0064]      FIG. 12B  provides more information related to Generating of Recommendations. 
           [0065]      FIG. 12C  provides further more information related to Generating of Recommendations. 
           [0066]      FIG. 13  provides an illustrative UMG for Analysis. 
           [0067]      FIG. 13A  provides an illustrative Analysis Result related to Tuning of UMG. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
       [0068]      FIG. 1  provides an overview of El Analysis System. The system ( 100 ) allows for what-if analysis and introspective analysis of a university and the means to achieve the same is as follows: to analyze the what-if request, based on the request, appropriately modify the university model graph associated with the university, interpret the modified university model graph to generate appropriate recommendations. The system takes a What-If request as input and generates recommendations to achieve, say, greater operational efficiency based on the database comprising of UMG data ( 110 ). 
         [0069]      FIG. 1   a  depicts an illustrative University Model Graph.  140  describes UMG as consisting of two main components: Entity Graph ( 142 ) and Entity-Instance Graph ( 144 ). Entity graph consists of entities of the university as its nodes and an abstract edge ( 146 ) or abstract link is a directed edge that connects two entities of the entity graph. Note that edge and link are used interchangeably. The weight associated with this abstract edge is the influence factor or influence value indicating nature and quantum of influence of the source entity on the destination entity. Again, influence factor and influence value are used interchangeably. Similarly, the nodes in the entity-instance graph are the entity instances and the edge ( 148 ) or the link between two entity-instances is a directed edge and the weight associated with the edge indicates the nature and quantum of influence of the source entity-instance on the destination entity-instance. 
         [0070]      FIG. 1   b  provides the elements of a University Model Graph. The fundamental elements are nodes and edges. There are two kinds of nodes: Abstract nodes ( 160  and  162 ) and Nodes ( 164  and  166 ); There are three kinds of directed edges or links: Abstract links ( 168 ), links ( 170  and  172 ), and semi-abstract links ( 174  and  176 ). As part of the modeling, the abstract nodes are mapped onto entities and nodes are mapped onto the instances of the entities; Each node is associated with an entity-specific instantiated model and a node score that is a value between 0 and 1 is based on the entity-specific instantiated model; This score is called as Base Score; the weight associated with an abstract link corresponds to an entity influence value (EI-Value), the weight associated with a semi-abstract link corresponds to either an entity-entity-instance influence value (EIEI-Value) or an entity-instance-entity influence value (IEEI-Value), and finally, the weight associated with a link corresponds to an entity-instance influence value (I-Value). Note that edges and links are used interchangeably. Further, each entity is associated with a model and an instance of an entity is associated with a base score and an instantiated model, wherein the base score is computed based on the associated instantiated model and denotes the assessment of the entity instance. The weight associated with a directed edge indicates the nature and quantum of influence of the source node on the destination node and is a value between −1 and +1; This weight is called as Influence Factor. 
         [0071]      FIG. 2  depicts a partial list of entities of a university. Note that a deep domain analysis would uncover several more entities and also their relationship with the other entities ( 200 ). For example, RESEARCH STUDENT is a STUDENT who is a part of a DEPARMENT and works with a FACULTY MEMBER in a LABORATORY using some EQUIPEMENT, the DEPARMENT LIBRARY, and the LIBRARY. 
         [0072]      FIG. 3  provides illustrative What-If Scenarios. 
         [0073]    About What-If Scenarios ( 300 ): 
         [0000]    1. There are several scenarios that are of interest with respect to a university.
 
2. Analyzing these scenarios based on University Model Graph provides an opportunity for the university under consideration to have a better operational control.
 
3. How is UMG suited for What-If analysis?
 
         [0074]    UMG brings out an impact of an entity-instance on one or more of the entity instances; 
         [0075]    This impact indicates how positiveness and negativeness spread throughout the university; 
         [0076]    By controlling these two impacts, the university gets an opportunity to manage its internal operations and resources in an efficient manner; 
         [0077]    Further, as the UMG captures impacts at both entity and entity-instance levels, it allows for a very fine-grained control on the university. 
         [0000]    4. Illustrative scenarios: 
         [0078]    A. How to allocate CAPEX—Determining the best way to distribute the annual budget keeping in mind to optimize on the overall and particular assessments; 
         [0079]    B. How to improve the industry participation and sponsorships—Identifying of key faculty members and helping them improve their overall profile; 
         [0080]    C. What is the impact of organizing seminars and conferences—In particular, helps in student and faculty member participation enhancing the overall assessment; 
         [0081]    D. What is the impact of improving library infrastructure—In general, this has a wide ranging impact helping in faculty members and students, and on projects and seminars; and 
         [0082]    E. What is the impact of a faculty member moving out—a faculty member has an influencing impact on peer faculty members and students. 
         [0083]      FIG. 4  provides illustrative Recommendations. 
         [0084]      400  provides an illustrative parametric model of STUDENT entity. Note that the generated recommendations are based on parameter values where there seems to be a scope for improvement. The computations are illustrative in nature with the overall score arrived based on the weighted summation. 
         [0085]    Similarly,  420  provides a few recommendations based on a hierarchical model associated with LIBRARY entity. Please note that the computations are for illustrative purposes and combined as a weighted summation at each level in the hierarchy. 
         [0086]      FIG. 4A  provides additional illustrative Recommendations. 
         [0087]    Again,  440  provides a few recommendations based on an activity based model associated with FACULTY MEMBER entity. Please note that the computations are for illustrative purposes and combined as a weighted summation at each level in the activity hierarchy. 
         [0088]      FIG. 5  provides an overview of Generic UMG Analysis Techniques. 
         [0000]    Means for (analysis of a what-if request) Generic Techniques for What-If Analysis ( 500 ):
 
1. Given a UMG, find an optimal sub-UMG.
 
2. Given a set S of entities and entity-instances along with the base scores, find out the minimal changes to UMG to achieve the scores as per S.
 
3. Given a few sets, S 1 , S 2 , . . . , and Sn, and a UMG, find out which Si is the best.
 
4. Local analysis: Select a sub-UMG, and perform Techniques 2 and 3 above.
 
5. Given a set PS of paired entities/entity-instances, and a UMG, change the I-Values minimally within plus or minus threshold, and determine the optimal UMG.
 
6. Change the I-Values minimally of as many entities/entity-instances as possible so that the base scores of entities/entity-instances change minimally by a given percentage.
 
7. Given two or more UMGs, combine them to generate a merged-UMG.
 
         [0089]    These techniques play an important role in the analysis and processing of a what-if request. 
         [0090]      FIG. 6  provides an overview of Approach for Technique 1. 
       Means for an Overview of an Approach for Technique 1 ( 600 ): 
       [0091]    Consider an entity-instance EIj; 
         [0092]    Looking from this node perspective, EIj influences positively some nodes, negatively some nodes, gets positively influenced by some nodes, and negatively influenced by some nodes; 
         [0093]    As depicted in  620 , the node EIj has influences shown by arrow marks: Dotted incoming arrows indicate negative incoming influences, dotted outgoing arrows indicate negative outgoing influences, thick incoming arrows indicate positive incoming influences, and thick outgoing arrows indicate positive outgoing influences. 
         [0094]    The objective is that when a negative influence value is reduced, effort should be made to increase the positive influence by a similar factor. 
         [0095]    As described above, there are four distinct cumulative influence values ( 640 ): N 1  nodes negatively influence EIj with an aggregated value of InNI and this value is denoted by −I3; Similarly, EIj influences N 2  nodes negatively with an aggregated value of OutNI and this value is denoted by −I1; N 3  nodes positively influence EIj with an aggregated value of InPI and this value is denoted by +I4; and, EIj influences N 4  nodes positively with an aggregated value of OutPI and this value is denoted by +I2. 
         [0096]    Balance −I1 by +I2 and similarly, balance −I3 by +I4. 
         [0097]    What it means is that more negatives in UMG provide more opportunities for improvement. 
         [0098]    A way is to distribute negatives equally on the positive entity instance influences. 
         [0099]      FIG. 6A  provides an Approach for Technique 1. 
         [0000]    Means for an approach for determining an optimal sub-UMG ( 660 ): 
       Step  1 : Input—UMG 
       [0100]    Output—an Optimal sub-UMG 
         [0000]    Step  2 : For each node Nj, Compute the following: 
         [0101]    InNI—Sum of incoming negative influences; 
         [0102]    N 1 —Number of nodes collectively influencing InNI; 
         [0103]    OutNI—Sum of outgoing negative influences; 
         [0104]    N 2 —Number of nodes collectively influencing OutNI; 
         [0105]    InPI—Sum of incoming positive influences; 
         [0106]    N 3 —Number of nodes collectively influencing InPI; 
         [0107]    OutPI—Sum of outgoing positive influences; 
         [0108]    N 4 —Number of nodes collectively influencing OutPI; 
         [0000]    Here, the node denotes either an entity or entity-instance. 
       // Balance OutNI (N 2 ) and OutPI (N 4 ); InNI (N 1 ) and InPI (N 3 ); 
     Step  3 : Case N 4 &gt;0:   
       [0109]    Increment each influence value (edge value) due to OutPI by OutNI/N 4 ; 
         [0110]    Set the negative influence value (edge value) due to OutNI as 0; 
         [0111]    Case N 3 &gt;0: 
         [0112]    Increment each influence value (edge value) InPI by InNI/N 3 ; 
         [0113]    Set the negative influence value (edge value) due to InNI as 0; 
         [0114]    Case N 4 =0: //No OutPI 
         [0115]    // No OutPI—nobody being positively influenced 
         [0116]    // Take a quantum of InPI and reduce OutNI; 
         [0117]    Let Alpha be a pre-defined threshold; 
         [0118]    InPIAlpha=InPI*Aplha; 
         [0119]    Increment each influence value (edge value) due to OutNI by InPIAlpha/N 2 ; 
         [0120]    Increment each influence value (edge value) due to InPI by InPIAlpha/N 3   
         [0121]    Case N 3 =0; //No InPI; 
         [0122]    // No InPI—nobody influences positively; 
         [0123]    // Take a quantum of OutPI and reducen InNI; 
         [0124]    Let Beta be a pre-defined threshold; 
         [0000]      OutPIBeta=OutPI*Beta; 
         [0125]    Increment each influence value (edge value) due to InNI by OutPIBeta/N 1 ; 
         [0126]    Increment each influence value (edge value 0  due to OutPI by OutPIBeta/N 4 ; 
         [0127]    Case N 3 =0 and N 4 =0: 
         [0128]    // Nobody being positively influenced and nobody influences positively; 
         [0129]    Remove the node; 
       Step  4 : END. 
       [0130]      FIG. 7  provides an Approach for Technique 2. 
       Means for an Approach for Tuning a UMG ( 700 ): 
       [0131]    Step  1 : Input: A set S of nodes (entities/entity-instances); 
         [0132]    Input: A UMG; 
         [0133]    Output: A tuned UMG 
         [0000]    Step  2 : Base score of a node is affected by (a) change in parameter values of Parametric Function (PF) of the node; (b) change in I-Values (influence values) directly or indirectly leading to the node;
 
Step  3 : Approach—Change the base scores and I-values of nodes minimally to achieve the result;
 
         [0134]    Realistically, a small epsilon changes to the base scores and I-Values are indeed possible; 
         [0000]    Step  4 : For each node N 1  in S, find the nearest neighbors N 1 NN based on UMG; 
         [0135]    For each N 2  in N 1 NN,
       Change base score of N 2  by Delta (a pre-defined threshold) provided the total change until now is &lt;Epsilon (a pre-defined threshold);   A positive edge connecting N 2  and N 1 : Increase by Delta provided the total change is &lt;Epsilon;   Similarly, a negative edge connecting N 2  and N 1 , Increase by Delta provided the total change is &lt;Epsilon;       
 
         [0139]    Recompute the base scores by propagation of influence values; 
         [0140]    Check whether each node of S has attained the required base score; 
         [0141]    If NOT, expand the nearest neighbor set and Repeat. 
       Step  5 : END. 
       [0142]      FIG. 8  provides an Approach for Technique 3. 
         [0000]    Means for an Approach for Selecting the best Set given UMG ( 800 ):
 
Step  1 : Input—A few sets S 1 , S 2 , . . . , Sk;
 
         [0143]    Input—A UMG 
         [0144]    Output—Select the best set Sj 
         [0000]    Step  2 : Approach—Combine each Si with the UMG and determine SUM of (BaseScore across the nodes of the UMG); 
         [0145]    Select Sj that maximizes the above SUM; 
         [0000]    Step  3 : Combining Si with UMG 
         [0146]    Case 1: Si is a node and the corresponding node exists in the UMG; 
         [0147]    Replace the node in UMG and compute the base scores and the sum of the base scores; 
         [0148]    Si is a node and the corresponding node does not exist in the UMG; 
         [0149]    Note: A new entity-instance needs to be created; 
         [0150]    Based on Parametric Function and available data values, 
         [0151]    Determine the Base Score of the node; 
         [0152]    Based on positive and negative influencers, determine the possible I-Values with select nodes (entities/entity-instances) of the UMG; 
         [0153]    Compute the base score and the sum of the base scores; 
         [0154]    Case 2: Si is a set of nodes; 
         [0155]    Repeat Case 1 for each Node of Si; 
         [0156]    Case 3: Si is a sub-graph with I-Values; 
         [0157]    Case 31: No common nodes; 
         [0158]    Merge Si and UMG, and Recompute the sum of the base scores; 
         [0159]    Case 32: Some nodes are common; 
         [0160]    Replace the common nodes; take the better I-Value for each of the matching edge; 
         [0161]    Merge the remaining nodes; 
         [0162]    Recompute the base scores and the sum of the base scores; 
         [0163]    Case 33: All nodes are common; 
         [0164]    Replace and Recompute the sum of the base scores; 
       Step  4 : END. 
       [0165]      FIG. 9  provides an Approach for Technique 4. 
       Means for an Approach for Local Analysis ( 900 ): 
     Step  1 : Input—A UMG; 
       [0166]    Step  2 : Obtain the conditions for the selection of a sub-UMG; 
         [0167]    Obtain the set S; 
         [0000]    Step  3 : Selection of Sub-UMG based on semantic conditions and semantic neighbors; 
         [0168]    For example, consider the entity FACULTY MEMBER; for each such entity, define semantic neighbors; and continue in the same manner; As an illustration, FACULTY MEMBER, all courses offered by FACULTY MEMBER (nearest neighbors NNs), STUDENTS who have enrolled for each course, LAB where FACULTY MEMBER is an investigator, FUNDS allocated to LAB, FACULTY MEMBER co-working in LAB, . . . 
         [0000]    Step  4 : Perform Sub-UMG tuning based on 5;
 
Step  5 : Obtain the sets S 1 , S 2 , . . . , Sk;
 
Step  6 : Perform the selection of the best Sj based on Sub-UMG;
 
       Step  7 : END. 
       [0169]      FIG. 10  provides an Approach for Technique 5. 
         [0000]    Means for an Approach for tuning UMG based on I-Values—1 ( 1000 ):
 
Step  1 : Input—A set PS of entity-instance pairs;
 
         [0170]    Input—A UMG; 
         [0000]    Step  2 : For each edge E in PS, 
         [0171]    Locate the corresponding edge in the UMG; 
         [0172]    Increase the I-Value by an Epsilon; 
         [0000]    Step  3 : Recompute the base scores by I-Value propagation; 
       Step  4 : END. 
       [0173]      FIG. 10A  provides additional information on Approach for Technique 5. 
         [0000]    Means for an Approach for tuning UMG based on I-Values—2 ( 1020 ): 
       Step  1 : Input—A UMG; 
     Step  2 : Output—A Tuned UMG; 
       [0174]    Step  3  (P 1 ): Obtain a node N; 
         [0175]    Change I-Values leading to N by Epsilon (a pre-defined threshold); 
         [0176]    Check whether base score of N has changed by a given percentage; 
         [0000]    Step  4  (P 4 ): How to select N? Based on number of in-degrees, Sum of I-Values, . . . ;
 
Step  5  (P 2 ): Select nearest neighbors NN of N;
 
         [0177]    For each N 1  of NN, Perform P 1 ; 
         [0000]    Step  6 : If the UMG has still more nodes left to be covered, 
         [0178]    Select a new node based on P 4  and Repeat; 
       Step  7 : END. 
       [0179]      FIG. 11  provides an Approach for Technique 6. 
       Means for an Approach for Combining UMGs ( 1100 ): 
     Step  1 : Input—A set S of UMGs; 
       [0180]    Step  2 : Output—A combined UMG (CUMG) 
       Step  3 : Consider a UMG and set it as CUMG; 
       [0181]    Step  4 : Obtain the Next UMG from S;
 
Step  5 : Case 1: Obtain the common nodes between the Next UMG and CUMG;
 
         [0182]    For each common node, replace with the best of base scores; 
         [0183]    For each common edge, replace with the best of the I-Values; 
         [0184]    Case 2: For each non-common node, suitably introduce into the CUMG; 
         [0185]    Repeat until there are no more UMGs to be combined. 
       Step  6 : END. 
       [0186]      FIG. 12  provides an overview of Generating Recommendations. 
         [0187]    Interpreting What-IF analysis Results ( 1200 ): 
         [0000]    Means and an approach for generating recommendations based on Parametric Model:
 
1. The interpretation is based on the model associated with a node of UMG that is a part of what-if analysis.
 
2. There are three kinds of models: Parametric model, Hierarchical model, and Activity-Based model.
 
3. Consider a parametric model: This model comprises of a set of parametric functions (PFs); Each PF is labeled with 1 or 0 indicating whether it is manipulable or not. That is, whether the parameter is amenable for reflecting any improvement.
 
4. Let SPF be a set of such manipulable parameters;
 
         [0188]    As an illustration, consider three parameters of SPF, X 1 , X 2 , and X 3 ; 
         [0189]    Define, 
         [0000]        S=W 1* X 1 +W 2 *X 2 +W 3 *X 3; 
         [0190]    Let Delta be the proposed to change to S; S′=S+Delta 
         [0191]    The problem is to find changes in X 1  (X 1 ′), X 2  (X 2 ′), and X 3  (X 3 ′) such that 
         [0000]        S′=W 1 *X 1′+ W 2 *X 2′+ W 3 *X 3′
 
         [0192]    How do we solve this problem? 
         [0000]    5. Each parameter X is a normalized value between 0 and 1; 
         [0193]    With respect to each parameter, define a lower threshold (LT) and an upper threshold (UT) ( 1220 ); 
         [0194]    If the value of X&lt;LT, then it is difficult to demand an improvement; (Under Performance) 
         [0195]    If the value of X&gt;UT, then again, it is difficult to demand an improvement (Over Saturation) 
         [0196]    If the value LT&lt;X&lt;UT, then there is a scope for improvement, with the expected improvements to increase from LT to 0.5 and then drop; 
         [0197]      FIG. 12A  provides additional information related to Generating of Recommendations. 
         [0000]    Interpreting What-IF analysis Results (Contd.) ( 1240 ):
 
Means and an approach for generating recommendations based on Parametric Model (Contd.):
 
       6. Let S′−S=Beta; 
       [0198]    For each Xi: If Xi&lt;LT, Then Epsilon 1 =0; 
         [0199]    Else If Xi&gt;UT, Then Epsilon 1 =0; 
         [0200]    Else If Xi&lt;=0.5, Then, Epsilon 1 =(X−LT)/(0.5−LT); 
         [0201]    Else If Xi&gt;0.5, Then Epsilon 1 =(UT−X)/(UT−0.5); 
       7. Compute Epsilon 1 , Epsilon 2 , and Epsilon 3 ; 
     8. Compute Delta 1 =Epsilon 1 *Beta/(Sum (Epsilon 1 , Epsilon 2 , Epsilon 3 ); 
       [0202]    9. Affect changes to parameters based Delta 1 , Delta 2 , and Delta 3 .
 
10. Suggest changes based on Delta 1  and description associated with the each parameter;
 
         [0203]      FIG. 12B  provides more information related to Generating of Recommendations. 
         [0000]    Interpreting What-IF analysis Results (Contd.) ( 1260 ):
 
Means and an approach for generating recommendations based on Hierarchical Model:
 
1. Consider an illustrative hierarchical model ( 1270 ):
 
2. Let Base score of E 1  be S; As an illustration, What-If analysis requires the value to be changed to S′;
 
         [0204]    Let Beta=S′−S; 
         [0000]    3. Get the child nodes of E 1 ; With respect to the illustrative model, N 1 , N 2 , and N 3  are the child nodes;
 
4. Let X 1 , X 2 , and X 3  be the Non-Leaf-values associated with the child nodes N 1 , N 2 , and N 3 ;
 
       5. Compute Epsilon 1 , Epsilon 2 , and Epsilon  3 , and Delta 1 , Delta 2 , and Delta 3 ; 
       [0205]    6. Based on the semantic description of a node and the corresponding change, provide the recommendations;
 
7. Repeat the above steps for each of the child nodes.
 
       8. END. 
       [0206]      FIG. 12C  provides further more information related to Generating of Recommendations. 
         [0000]    Interpreting What-IF analysis Results (Contd.) ( 1280 ):
 
Means and an approach for generating recommendations based on Activity-Based Model:
 
1. Consider an illustrative Activity-based model ( 1290 ):
 
2. Let Base score of E 1  be S; As an illustration, What-If analysis requires the value to be changed to S′;
 
         [0207]    Let Beta=S′−S; 
         [0000]    3. Get the child nodes of E 1 ; With respect to the illustrative model, N 1 , N 2 , and N 3  are the child nodes;
 
4. Let X 1 , X 2 , and X 3  be the Non-Leaf-values associated with the child nodes N 1 , N 2 , and N 3 ;
 
       5. Compute Epsilon 1 , Epsilon 2 , and Epsilon  3 , and Delta 1 , Delta 2 , and Delta 3 ; 
       [0208]    6. Based on the semantic description of a node and the corresponding change, provide the recommendations;
 
7. Repeat the above steps for each of the child nodes.
 
       8. END. 
       [0209]      FIG. 13  provides an illustrative UMG for Analysis. 
         [0210]    The illustrated UMG ( 1300 ) is shown in two forms: A graph based depiction ( 1320 ) displays how the various nodes (that stand for entities/entity-instances) N 1 , N 2 , . . . , N 11  are interconnected; further, the edges are indicated with the illustrative influence values that are a value between −1 and +1. An equivalent representation is in the form of adjacency matrix ( 1340 ). In this representation, the element values depict the influence values as shown. Further, the base score associated with each of the nodes is also indicated under the column “Base Score.” The depicted UMG is in its stable form after the influence values have been propagated. An illustrative propagation is shown wherein the influence values of the child nodes along with base scores are used in arriving at the updated base score of a parent node. 
         [0211]      FIG. 13A  provides an illustrative Analysis Result related to Tuning of UMG.  1360  depicts the result of the illustrative analysis. In tuning, an attempt is made to reduce the negative influence values associated with N 1 -N 6 , N 2 -N 6 , and N 6 -N 10 . The base scores are appropriately recomputed based on the changed influence values leading to the UMG that is better (operationally, more efficient) as depicted by the SUM of the base scores (4.56 as compared with 4.28). 
         [0212]    Thus, a system and method for what-if analysis based on a university model graph is disclosed. Although the present invention has been described particularly with reference to the figures, it will be apparent to one of the ordinary skill in the art that the present invention may appear in any number of systems that provide for what-if analysis of influence based structural representation. It is further contemplated that many changes and modifications may be made by one of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention.