## 4 Results and Discussion
### Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Based on AHP
#### 4.2.3 Pairwise Comparison Matrix of Criteria  
In this step, the weight of each factor is identified to show the relative importance of each element to the others. A comparison matrix is created for the weight calculation depending on the importance given to each factor [58].  
Table 5, shows the pairwise matrix of criteria labeled as A1 and the calculated weights of the criteria labeled as A2, which is the last column of Table 5. The paragraphs that follow explain the weight calculation process of the criteria.  
The calculated weights of the criteria are given in Table 5, column (A2), which shows that the factor legal requirements had the highest priority (30.2%) among all the influencing factors. Similarly, the cost and employee skills received high priority after the legal requirements with equal weights of 15.3%. Other notable factors were poor communication and frequent requirement changes with priorities of 9.2% and 8%, respectively. Both domain knowledge and project management had the same level of importance as each had 5.5% priority. The step-by-step calculation of the weights of the criteria is given in Table 6.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **ES** & **PC** & **Cos** & **LR** & **Inf** & **ML** & **FRC** & **LB** & **DK** & **PM** \\ \hline Employee skills & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1/3 & 5 & 3 & 2 & 7 & 3 & 3 \\ Poor communication & 1/2 & 1 & 1/2 & 1/4 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 5 & 2 & 2 \\ Cost & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1/3 & 5 & 3 & 2 & 7 & 3 & 3 \\ Legal requirements & 3 & 4 & 3 & 1 & 7 & 5 & 4 & 9 & 5 & 5 \\ Infrastructure & 1/5 & 1/3 & 1/5 & 1/7 & 1 & 1/2 & 1/2 & 4 & 1/2 & 1/2 \\ Maturity level & 1/3 & 1/2 & 1/3 & 1/5 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 4 & 1 & 1 \\ Frequent R C & 1/2 & 1 & 1/2 & 1/4 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 4 & 2 & 1/5 \\ Language barrier & 1/7 & 1/5 & 1/7 & 1/9 & 1/4 & 1/4 & 1 & 1/4 & 1 & 1/4 & 1/4 \\ Domain knowledge & 1/3 & 1/2 & 1/3 & 1/5 & 2 & 1 & 1/2 & 4 & 1 & 1 \\ Project management & 1/3 & 1/2 & 1/3 & 1/5 & 2 & 1 & 1/2 & 4 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Assigning weights to criteria with respect to the goal.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & & **A1** & & & & & **A2** \\ \hline ES & **EC** & **Cos** & **LR** & **Inf** & **ML** & **FRC** & **LB** & **DK** & **PM** & **Weights** \\ \hline ES & 1.000 & 2.000 & 1.000 & 0.333 & 5.000 & 3.000 & 2.000 & 7.000 & 3.000 & 3.000 & 3.000 & 0.153 \\ PC & 0.500 & 1.000 & 0.500 & 0.250 & 3.000 & 2.000 & 1.000 & 5.000 & 2.000 & 2.000 & 2.000 & 0.092 \\ Cos & 1.000 & 2.000 & 1.000 & 0.333 & 5.000 & 3.000 & 2.000 & 7.000 & 3.000 & 3.000 & 0.153 \\ LR & 3.000 & 4.000 & 3.000 & 1.000 & 7.000 & 5.000 & 4.000 & 9.000 & 5.000 & 5.000 & 3.02 \\ Inf & 0.200 & 0.333 & 0.200 & 0.143 & 1.000 & 0.500 & 0.500 & 4.000 & 0.500 & 0.500 & 0.035 \\ ML & 0.333 & 0.500 & 0.333 & 0.200 & 2.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 4.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.059 \\ FRC & 0.500 & 1.000 & 0.500 & 0.250 & 2.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 4.000 & 2.000 & 2.000 & 0.080 \\ LB & 0.143 & 0.200 & 0.143 & 0.111 & 0.250 & 0.250 & 0.250 & 1.000 & 0.250 & 0.250 & 0.017 \\ DK & 0.333 & 0.500 & 0.333 & 0.200 & 2.000 & 1.000 & 0.500 & 4.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.055 \\ PM & 0.333 & 0.500 & 0.333 & 0.200 & 2.000 & 1.000 & 0.500 & 4.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.055 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Pairwise comparison of the criteria.