## 4 Results
### Sensitivity Analysis  
A sensitivity analysis was conducted for each factor to determine its impact on smart port performance. We specifically focused on examining the influence of technological advancements _(TA)_ because it was identified as the most significant factor affecting smart port performance in our case study. Using the aggregated matrix presented in Table 3 as a baseline, we recalculated the total centrality of the nodes under two scenarios: a 20% increase in the outgoing weights of the TA node and a 20% decrease in the outgoing weights of the same node.  
In the first scenario, we obtain the following indegree (Id), outdegree (Od) and total centrality (Td) results (Table 9).  
The interval values are displayed in Table 10 after applying deneturosophication in which I \(\in[0,1]\) is replaced by their lowest and maximum values.  
Based on Equation (5), the means of the extreme values are obtained to analyze the characteristics to be attended according to the factors obtained and are shown in Table 11.  
Then, the final priorities of the static analysis of the NCM of our case study can be ordered as follows: TA \(\succ\) OE \(\succ\) F \(\succ\) CC\(\sim\)SS \(\succ\) ES.  
Following the same calculation steps for the second scenario (20% decrease in the outgoing weights of the TA node) we have the following results as shown in Table 12.  
In this scenario, the final priorities, of the static analysis of the NCM of our case study, can be ordered as follows: TA \(\succ\) OE \(\succ\) SS \(\succ\) F \(\succ\) CC \(\succ\) ES.  
The sensitivity analysis highlights the pivotal role of _technological advancement (TA)_ in smart port performance, consistently ranking as the top priority. Increasing TA's impact strengthens its position but may overshadow other essential factors such as _safety and security (SS)_ and _customer-centricity (CC)_. In contrast, diminishing TA's influence strengthens SS, emphasizing its relevance in scenarios with limited technology investments. _Operational efficiency (OE)_ remains a top priority in all settings, highlighting its critical importance.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Node** & **Total Centrality** \\ \hline OE & [6.6, 8.6] \\ \hline TA & 20.6 \\ \hline ES & [3.2, 5.2] \\ \hline CC & [5.8, 6.8] \\ \hline SS & [3.6, 9.6] \\ \hline F & [4.4, 10.8] \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 11: Median of the extremes values in the first scenario.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Node** & **Id** & **Od** & **Td** \\ \hline OE & 1.2 & 5.4+2I & 6.6+2I \\ \hline TA & 7.4 & 13.2 & 20.6 \\ \hline ES & 4.4+I & I\(-\)1.2 & 3.2+2I \\ \hline CC & 3.4+I & 2.4 & 5.8+I \\ \hline SS & 4.4+3I & 3I\(-\)0.8 & 3.6+6I \\ \hline F & 3.2I+1.2 & 3.2+3.2I & 4.4+6.4I \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 9: Measures of centrality, outdegree and indegree in the first scenario.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Node** & **Total Centrality** \\ \hline OE & 7.6 \\ \hline TA & 20.6 \\ \hline ES & 4.2 \\ \hline CC & 6.3 \\ \hline SS & 6.6 \\ \hline F & 7.6 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 12: Median of the extremes values in the second scenario.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Node** & **Total Centrality** \\ \hline OE & 6.1 \\ \hline TA & 11.4 \\ \hline ES & 2.8 \\ \hline CC & 3.7 \\ \hline SS & 4.4 \\ \hline F & 4.1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: Deneturosophication process of the values of total centrality.