## 4 Results
Moreover, as the outcomes have several indicators, a weight is assigned to each of them using the pairwise comparisons method and the opinions of experts. Finally, combining the weights with the indicator values, an assessment for each one of the outcomes is obtained, showing that Gran Canaria has an outcome \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **GC** & **TF** & **GC** & **TF** & **Weights (\%)** & **GC** & **TF** \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Capabilities**} \\ _Demand_ & & & & & & \\ Sophisticated demand1 & 6.64 & 3.86 & 100.00 & 58.13 & 60 & & \\ Sophisticated demand2 & 33.5 & 32.7 & 100.00 & 97.61 & 30 & 100.00 & 72.84 \\ Sophisticated demand3 & 61.12 & 53.06 & 100.00 & 86.81 & 10 & & \\ _Innovation_ & & & & & & \\ Innovative behaviour1 & 8 & 1 & 100.00 & 12.50 & 55 & & \\ Innovative behaviour2 & 18 & 3 & 100.00 & 16.67 & 15 & 100.00 & 20.62 \\ Innovative behaviour3 & 16 & 6 & 100.00 & 37.50 & 30 & & \\ _Proximity_ & & & & & & \\ Firms’ concentration & 1.86 & 1.33 & 100.00 & 71.29 & 30 & & \\ Business networks & 3.32 & 2.91 & 100.00 & 87.65 & 70 & 100.00 & 82.74 \\ _Goverance_ & & & & & & & \\ Investment effort & 30.01 & 38.09 & 78.79 & 100.00 & 60 & & \\ Cooperation1 & 1.82 & 2.00 & 91.00 & 100.00 & & & 86.07 & 98.58 \\ Cooperation2 & 2.00 & 1.90 & 100.00 & 95.00 & 40 & & \\ Cooperation3 & 2.12 & 2.00 & 100.00 & 94.34 & & & \\ \multicolumn{8}{c}{Potential of capabilities:} & & & 386.07 & 274.78 \\ \multicolumn{8}{c}{Total potential:} & & & 554.60 & 439.62 \\ \multicolumn{8}{c}{GC = Gran Canaria; TF = Tenerife} & & 100 & 79.26 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._index over 40 points higher than Tenerife (GC: 100.00; TF: 58.04) due to a higher value in all the indicators. Differences are mainly found in industrial penetration, followed by productivity and social outcomes. On the basis of the same criterion used with resources and capabilities, mutual influence between outcomes is also assumed. Therefore, this relation is better represented by the value of a polygon area (see Figure 7). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **GC** & **TF** & **GC** & **TF** \\ \hline
**Polygon area** & 22,245.3 & 14,040.4 & 100 & 63.12 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Resources and capabilities assessment in Gran Canaria and Tenerife. Figure 6: A comparative graph of resources and capabilities for Gran Canaria and Tenerife. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **GC** & **TF** & **GC** & **TF** & **Weights (\%)** & **GC** & **TF** \\ \hline Productivity1 & 2.52 & 2.10 & 100.00 & 83.26 & 50 & & \\ Productivity2 & 18.29 & 6.61 & 100.00 & 36.11 & 20 & 100.00 & 59.67 \\ Productivity3 & 5.74 & 2.07 & 100.00 & 36.06 & 30 & & \\ Social outcomes1 & 167.21 & 60.39 & 100.00 & 36.11 & 60 & 100.00 & 61.67 \\ Social outcomes2 & 5 & 5 & 100.00 & 100.00 & 40 & & \\ Industrial penetration1 & 0.13 & 0.08 & 100.00 & 61.54 & 50 & 100.00 & 52.77 \\ Industrial penetration2 & 92.76 & 40.81 & 100.00 & 44.00 & 50 & & \\ \multicolumn{5}{c}{Total outcomes} & & & 300.00 & 174.11 \\ \multicolumn{5}{c}{GC = Gran Canaria; TF = Tenerife} & & 100.00 & 58.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Outcomes assessment in Gran Canaria and Tenerife. The territory outcomes assessment is then calculated as a ratio between the triangle area that represents each island and the maximum triangle area, with a rank of 100 in all the factors [19], as shown in Table 6.  
Once all the indicators in the model have been quantified (resources, capabilities, and outcomes), the method goes on to calculate a territory competitiveness index as the ratio between the value of outcomes and the value of resources and capabilities for each island. Thus, Gran Canaria obtains a territory competitiveness index of 1 (100/100), and Tenerife gets an index of 0.53 (33.61/63.12). This result means that Gran Canaria obtains nearly twice the performance of Tenerife with regards to resources and capabilities.