8. Utility analysis - RichiWolf/HHZ_Projekt_Measurement-of-shopping-time-in-supermarkets GitHub Wiki
Pairwise comparison
The defined criteria that evaluates the different technologies are compared in this chapter. The legend defines the possible values to be assigned. The aim is to establish a weighting of the criteria being compared. In the table, the criteria are compared to determine whether one criterion is either more important, equally important or less important than the other one. If the same criterion is compared, no value is assigned. In conclusion, the values assigned to the disturbing factor, bit rate and accuracy with the highest weighting of 23.81% are the most important and the values assigned to range, power consumption and life span with a weighting of less than 10% are the least important.
| Range | Accuracy | Power consumption | Life span | Bit rate | Disturbing factor | Embedding | Sum | Percentage [%] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | X | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.38 |
| Accuracy | 2 | X | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 23.81 |
| Power consumption | 1 | 0 | X | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4.76 |
| Life span | 2 | 0 | 1 | X | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7.14 |
| Bit rate | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | X | 1 | 2 | 10 | 23.81 |
| Disturbing factor | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | X | 2 | 10 | 23.81 |
| Embedding | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | X | 6 | 14.29 |
| Sum | 42 | 100 |
Legend
| More important | 2 |
| Equally important | 1 |
| Less important | 0 |
| No statement | X |
Utility analysis
Utility analysis is a method for the comparative evaluation of objects or action alternatives (Minter, Steffen ). The goal is to evaluate the technologies based on assigned weighted criteria. Firstly, the criteria were selected based on sources. After that the weighting of the defined criteria is determined by the method presented in the above chapter. To evaluate the technologies, the project team decides to assign a rating from 1 to 4 (evidently in the legend below) for each criterion per technology. The base of this rating are the descriptions of how well the technologys perform in the given criteria. These descriptions can be found via links at the technoogy names within the table below. The ratings are multiplied by the already existing weightings of the criteria and divided by 100 to determine the impact of the results to the overall outcome. The total score at the bottom of the table shows how good the technologys are in the aspect of this project in comparison to the other technologys. Finally, it can be shown that AR performs comparatively poorly and RFID performs best, closely followed by VLC.
| Criterion | Weighting in % | RFID | AR | Beacons | VLC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | 2.38 | 1 | 0.02 | 2 | 0.05 | 4 | 0.10 | 4 | 0.10 |
| Accuracy | 23.81 | 4 | 0.95 | 1 | 0.24 | 3 | 0.71 | 4 | 0.95 |
| Power consumption | 4.76 | 4 | 0.19 | 4 | 0.19 | 2 | 0.10 | 3 | 0.14 |
| Life span | 7.14 | 4 | 0.29 | 2 | 0.14 | 3 | 0.21 | 2 | 0.14 |
| Bit rate | 23.81 | 2 | 0.48 | 1 | 0.24 | 3 | 0.71 | 4 | 0.95 |
| Disturbing factor | 23.81 | 3 | 0.71 | 4 | 0.95 | 1 | 0.24 | 1 | 0.24 |
| Embedding | 14.29 | 4 | 0.57 | 1 | 0.14 | 2 | 0.29 | 1 | 0.14 |
| Utility | 2.64 | 1.81 | 2.07 | 2.52 |
Legend
| 1 | Bad |
| 2 | OK |
| 3 | Good |
| 4 | Very good |