## 4 Empirical Analysis
### Evaluation Criteria Analysis
Service performances/effects had the highest weight (0.402), followed by market demand growth (0.299) and competitiveness versus existing services (0.295). Clearly, the performance and effectiveness of the service itself, such as response to abnormal situations and accident prevention, are important evaluation factors. Finally, regarding the TFN of service feasibility, economic efficiency had values of 0.22, 0.30, and 0.42, field applicability had values of 0.28, 0.40, and 0.57, and operational sustainability had values of 0.21, 0.29, and 0.40. Field applicability had the highest weight (0.396), followed by economic efficiency (0.308) and operational sustainability (0.295). Field applicability, including personal information protection, risk management such as administrative delays, and actual service operation in the field, appears to be highly evaluated. Finally, the final importance ranking calculated by multiplying the evaluation criteria weights of the second and third classes and reported in Table 6 revealed that service performances/effects were the most important at 0.134, followed by prevention of life safety (0.132), field applicability (0.131), CCTV replacement/complementary effects (0.113), and economic efficiency (0.102). The performance/effects of the service itself should be excellent depending on the distinct features of a thermal camera. Prevention of life safety for citizens is assumed to be possible by replacing/supplementing CCTVs. Furthermore, selecting a service model that ensures practical field applicability and economic efficiency is essential to realize services such as risk management, cooperation with related organizations, and government support. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**The Second Class** & **Purpose Compliance** & **Service Suitability** & **Service Feasibility** \\ \hline Purpose compliance & \((1,1,1)\) & \((0.76,0.97,1.24)\) & \((0.82,1.04,1.32)\) \\ Service suitability & \((0.80,1.03,1.31)\) & \((1,1,1)\) & \((0.75,0.98,1.27)\) \\ Service feasibility & \((0.76,0.96,1.21)\) & \((0.79,1.02,1.33)\) & \((1,1,1)\) \\ TFN \((S_{1},\ S_{2},\ S_{3})\) & \((0.24,0.34,0.46)\) & \((0.24,0.33,0.47)\) & \((0.24,0.33,0.46)\) \\ Weight & \(0.337\) & \(0.333\) & \(0.331\) \\ (normalization) & \(0.337\) & \(0.333\) & \(0.331\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The second class TFN and weight calculation results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Class A** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Class B**} \\ \hline
**Major Classification** & **Weight (Rank)** & **Minor Classification** & **Weight (Rank)** & **Final Importance (Rank)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Purpose compliance} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.337 (1)} & Prevention of life safety & 0.394 (1) & 0.132 (2) \\ \cline{3-5}  & & CCTV replacement/complementary effects & 0.337 (2) & 0.113 (4) \\ \cline{3-5}  & & Conformity to relevant policies & 0.270 (3) & 0.091 (9) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Service suitability} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.333 (2)} & Service performances/effects & 0.402 (1) & 0.134 (1) \\ \cline{3-5}  & & Competitiveness versus existing services & 0.295 (3) & 0.098 (7) \\ \cline{3-5}  & & Market demand growth & 0.299 (2) & 0.099 (6) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Service feasibility} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.331 (3)} & Economic efficiency & 0.308 (2) & 0.102 (5) \\ \cline{3-5}  & & Field applicability & 0.396 (1) & 0.131 (3) \\ \cline{3-5}  & & Operational sustainability & 0.295 (3) & 0.097 (8) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Analysis results of evaluation criteria.