Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Multi
access
+
Availability
+
+
Fault
tolerance
Response
time
+
Accuracy
Integrity
+
Fig. 3.
Contributions between concerns for Enter Subway match point
Note that the identification of the above concerns and their specification in terms
of the entries in Tables 5 and 6 is not the aim of this paper. Here we will simply use
the results of the application of the AORA method to manage conflicts.
The goal of the rest of this section is to rank all the concerns required by Enter
Subway, including those that contribute negatively to each other.
4.2 Applying the AHP Method
As described in Sect. 3.1, the AHP method is composed of five main steps. The result
is the ranking of concerns. It should be noted that we developed the whole application
in excel, which shows that there is no need for sophisticated tool support to
implement this approach.
Step 1: Problem Definition
The goal is to rank the concerns required in a given match point. In our case, as
mentioned before, the match point selected is “Enter subway”. The alternatives are
the different concerns identified in the Enter Subway match point:
A = {Accuracy, Response time, Availability, Integrity, Multi-Access, Validate Card, Fault
Tolerance}.
The criteria, also referred to as decision criteria, represent the different dimensions
from which the alternatives can be analysed. For our problem, we have two major
criteria:
C
= {Contribution, Stakeholders_Importance}
By dividing the
Stakeholders_Importance
criterion into sub-criteria it is possible to
use individual stakeholder judgments as part of the decision problem. The main
reason for the division is that the relation between concerns and its importance is
dependent of the judgement of each stakeholder regarding the variables that are
influent in her/his perspective of the system. Therefore, the identified
Stakeholders_Importance
sub-criteria are:
C
stakeholder_importance
= {Passenger, System owner, Developer}.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search