## 5 Result and Discussion  
### Result from S&R  
The sense and response (S&R) method was implemented with the intention of incorporating and understanding the overall perceptions of technology developers on the H2020 RESOLVD solutions, and the project values were proposed. The method considered four dimensions to assess the relevance of the value propositions defined. These included the expectations of the developers for each proposition (before the piloting), the experiences after the KPIs were measured and quantified at the demonstration pilot, comparisons with other competitive technologies and the partners' general overview on the direction of technology development under the scope of smart grid management [18]. The overall summary of the S&R, with the scaled CFI values, which comprised all components of the attributes, such as experience, expectations, gap index, competitor index and direction of technology development, and results from the Equations (1)-(4) are presented in Table 2.  
The overall technology developers' perceptions of the H2020 RESOLVD solutions, with respect to each value proposition and critical factor index, is presented in Table 2.  
To overcome the LV grid challenges based on their criticality, the pareto analysis, which is known as the 80/20 principle, was used to systematically prioritize the propositions based on the CFI values. The pareto analysis showed the 80% of the challenges could be traced using the top six value propositions (Figure 5 green and light green), followed by improved cybersecurity through protection/detection/reaction actions and detection and interruption of unintentional uncontrolled islanding (see Figure 4 highlighted in gray color). Using similar contents of the critical factor analysis, the paper further implemented the pareto analysis as a methodology to justify how the decision makers could systematically compare the value propositions from technology developers' perspectives against the broader survey targeting the DSOs. The pareto analysis was done to prioritize the value propositions and solve the linked challenges in a step-by-step manner. The results from the CFI analysis and pareto analysis varied slightly and were very close. These close values \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Average of** \\ **Expectation** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Deviation of** \\ **Expectation** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Average of** \\ **Experiences** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Deviation of** \\ **Imévices** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Cap** \\ **Index** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Direction of** \\ **Development** \\ **Index** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Competitor** \\ **Index** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Importance** \\ **Index** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **CFI with Sample** \\ **Error Correction** \\ **(Scaled CFI)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline
1 & 6.83 & 1.17 & 6.83 & 1.72 & 1.0000 & 0.5000 & 1.0000 & 0.6830 & 6.013 \\
2 & 6.83 & 1.60 & 7.67 & 1.83 & 0.9160 & 0.5000 & 1.1667 & 0.6830 & 9.4804 \\
3 & 7.67 & 1.75 & 7.5 & 1.76 & 1.0170 & 0.5000 & 1.3333 & 0.7670 & 8.0172 \\
4 & 7.83 & 1.72 & 8.33 & 1.75 & 0.9500 & 0.5000 & 1.3333 & 0.7800 & 8.2132 \\
5 & 7.60 & 1.82 & 7.60 & 1.82 & 1.0000 & 0.5000 & 1.3333 & 0.7600 & 8.837 \\
6 & 7.60 & 2.30 & 8.00 & 2.12 & 0.9600 & 0.8333 & 1.3333 & 0.7600 & 8.1399 \\
7 & 7.00 & 2.12 & 7.60 & 2.34 & 0.9400 & 0.8333 & 1.5000 & 0.7000 & 9.1673 \\
8 & 7.00 & 2.19 & 7.16 & 1.94 & 0.9840 & 0.8333 & 1.1667 & 0.7000 & 7.5219 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Sense and response attributes with a scaled CFI. Figure 4: Critical factor index of the RESOLVD value propositions based on the sense and respond analysis.