Figure 1: Step of the Case Study
Intensity of Importance |
Definition |
Explanation |
1 |
Equal Importance |
Requirements I and j are equal value |
3 |
Moderate Importance |
Requirements I has slightly higher value than j |
5 |
Strong Importance |
Requirements I has strongly higher value than j |
7 |
Very Strong Importance |
Requirements I has very strongly higher value than j |
9 |
Extreme Importance |
Requirements I has very an absolutely higher value than j |
2,4,6,8 |
Intermediate Values |
These are Intermediate scales between two adjacent judgments |
Table 1: Scoring Scale of AHP
|
N |
RI |
|
1 |
0 |
|
2 |
0 |
|
3 |
0,58 |
|
4 |
0,90 |
|
5 |
1,12 |
|
6 |
1,24 |
Table 2: Random Consistency Index Table
CI Tool Alternativesl |
|
Alternative 1 |
|
Alternative 2 |
|
Alternative 3 |
|
Alternative 4 |
Table 3: Random Consistency Index Table
The Criteria |
Functionality |
FlexibiIity & Expandability |
Compatibility |
Reliability |
Table 4: Criteria
|
Mean Priorities of the Alternatives |
Normalized By Cluster |
|
Alternative 1 |
0,371432 |
|
Alternative 2 |
0,288618 |
|
Alternative 3 |
0,1911942 |
|
Alternative 4 |
0,1487562 |
Table 5: Mean Priorities of the Alternatives
Figure 1: Step of the Case Study
Figure 2: General Hierarcy Structure o AHP
Figure 3: Study Gruop Graduated Department
Figure 4: Expectations from the continuous Integration tool features of Study Group
Figure 5: The AHP hierarchy structure of the component selection
Figure 6: The mean of criteria weights
Tables at a glance
Figures at a glance