## 5 Human-Technology Comparison
### Weighted Factor Analysis

Table 4: SWOT Analysis of human operator and advanced technologies in visual inspection. Next, the weightings of the criteria had to be determined. Therefore, a pairwise comparison was used (Figure 9). Each criterion was compared against the others. If criterion A (first column) was less important than criterion B (first row), it received a score of 0. In contrast, if criterion B was more relevant than criterion A, a score of 2 was given. If the criteria were of equal importance a score of 1 was given. Subsequently, the points were summed up for each criterion and the percentage calculated. The results showed that inspection accuracy, inspection time and inspection consistency were most important, followed by flexibility and compliance. The ranking can be explained by the necessity to of achieve a performance similar to or better than the human operator in order to consider an alternative inspection agent. Thus, the performance metrics can be seen as a 'circuit breaker'. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Human Operator**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**IP Software**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**AI Software**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**3D Scanning**} \\ \hline
**Threats** & \(\bullet\) & Intentional or unintentional & \(\bullet\) & Seen as untrustworthy, unreliable and unreliable and unethical & \(\bullet\) & Might become bottleneck of operations \\  & & designations and procedures (norms) & \(\bullet\) & Requires regulatory approval (legislation) & \(\bullet\) & Risk and responsibility of incorrect decision & \(\bullet\) & Risk and responsibility of incorrect decision \\
**Threats** & \(\bullet\) & Organisational pressure & \(\bullet\) & Risk and responsibility of incorrect decision & \(\bullet\) & Primarily supplied by one vendor & \\  & & & \(\bullet\) & Discordance between software and inspection expert & \(\bullet\) & Discordance between & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Criteria**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Description**} \\ \hline Accuracy & Inspection accuracy is the proportion of correct serviceability decisions and number of blades inspected. \\ \hline Consistency & Repeated inspection outcome when presented with the same blade twice (assessment agreement with themselves). \\ \hline Inspection time & Time required to inspect each part. \\ \hline Investment cost & Initial procurement and setup cost. \\ \hline Operating cost & Cost for operating the system including license cost, maintenance cost and supervision cost (as applicable). \\ \hline H/TRL & How much time and effort for training and development is required to bring the inspection agent up to the required performance level? \\ \hline Agility & How easily can the inspection agent be transferred to the inspection of a new (different) part? \\ \hline Flexibility & How resistant is the inspection agent to changing inspection environments (e.g., different perspective or part condition)? \\ \hline Interoperability & How well can the system be integrated into the operational environment and interact with other processes (in light of smart factories, interconnectivity and Industry 4.0)? \\ \hline Automation & Can the system be fully automated? \\ \hline Standardisation & Does the inspection agent support standardisation? \\ \hline Documentation & How accurate are the recordings of the inspection results? \\ \hline Compliance & Is the inspection system approved by aviation authorities and does it comply with regulatory requirements? \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Description of criteria for weighted factor analysis. The weightings were used for the subsequent weighted factor analysis (Figure 10). Each inspection agent was rated based on the criteria on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 representing the highest fulfilment of the criteria. The score was multiplied by the weighting into a weighted score. The weighted scores were then summed for each inspection agent to form the total score.