Abstract

Experts were asked to complete a Google Forms questionnaire (https://goo.gl/forms/EEmkUmLIj20nMJS33) to compare all 5 metrics in pairs for the 4 considered scenarios (40 comparisons). Two questions were defined for each pairwise comparison: i) which is the preferred metric between the two presented (A/B), and ii) which is the intensity of this preference (following Saaty's fundamental scale of absolute numbers: 1-5). Likewise, they declared their familiarity with considered metrics in a Likert 1-5 scale. This information is then used to compute each expert's individual judgement by i) computing the geometric mean for each row of her pairwise comparison matrix, ii) summing up all computed geometric means, and iii) dividing each geometric mean by the resulting sum. The result is a priority vector. The Consistency Ratio (CR) is computed in three successive steps: i) the Principal Eigen Vector (PEV) is calculated by multiplying the sum of the various columns of the pairwise comparison matrix and the weights contained in the priority vector, ii) a consistency index (CI) is deduced attending to the PEV and the number of metrics under study, and iii) the CR can be obtained by normalizing the CI to the random consistency index (RI) that is directly obtained from a table defined in T. L. Saaty, "Decision-making with the ahp: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 85 – 91, 2003. Inconsistent matrices will not be taken into account (weight 0.00). The familiarity declared by each expert is used to compute, using the row geometric mean, the contribution (weight) that her preferences for metrics will have in each scenario. The weight of each metric for each scenario (consensus priority vector) is also be obtained using the weighted geometric mean.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call