# Automated System for Evaluating Alternatives for Developing Innovative IT Projects
## 4 Results
### Formation and Assessment of Alternatives
According to Table 2, Table 7 is constructed, using pre-established combinations of factor shares in the alternatives, presented in Table 6.  
The values of possible combinations of factors \"participation\" in the formation of alternative options for the IT project development process are used when constructing Table 8.  
Finally, the Pareto subset can be considered as some autonomous set for which factors need to be calculated with refined weight values. To do this, based on the initial factor weights in Table 7, a matrix of pairwise comparison is constructed, presented in Table 9.  
Processing the matrix provides obtaining the refined weight values of the Pareto set factors: \(w_{1}=0.54\); \(w_{2}=0.27\); \(w_{3}=0.13;w_{4}=0.06\). The reliability criteria of the calculations are within acceptable limits, namely: the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix \(\lambda_{\max}=4.16\); the consistency index \(IU=0.05\); the consistency ratio \(WU=0.06\). The new weight values are used in calculating the utility functions of the factors involved in alternative options of the IT project development process. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Possible Combinations**} \\ \hline
10-10-80 & 20-10-70 & 30-10-60 & 40-10-50 \\
10-20-70 & 20-20-60 & 30-20-50 & 40-20-40 \\
10-30-60 & 20-30-50 & 30-30-40 & 40-30-30 \\
10-40-50 & 20-40-40 & 30-40-30 & 40-40-20 \\
10-50-40 & 20-50-30 & 30-50-20 & 40-50-10 \\
10-60-30 & 20-60-20 & 30-60-10 & 50-10-40 \\
10-70-20 & 20-70-10 & 60-10-30 & 50-20-30 \\
10-80-10 & 70-10-20 & 60-20-20 & 50-30-20 \\
80-10-10 & 70-20-10 & 60-30-10 & 50-40-10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Combinations of factor shares in alternatives in percentages. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Assessing the Importance of Factors in**} \\
**Factors** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Initial Factor Weights**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Alternatives in \%**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & **AW1** & **AW2** & **AW3** \\ \hline Testing level (\(Z_{1}\)) & 355 & 50 & 30 & 20 \\ Safety (\(Z_{2}\)) & 242 & 30 & 40 & 30 \\ Functional & 171 & 20 & 50 & 30 \\ suitability (\(Z_{3}\)) & 100 & 40 & 10 & 50 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Experimental assessment of alternatives of the Pareto subset by numerical values of the factor efficiency. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(\mathbf{Z_{1}}\) & \(\mathbf{Z_{2}}\) & \(\mathbf{Z_{3}}\) & \(\mathbf{Z_{4}}\) \\ \hline \(Z_{1}\) & 1 & 3 & 4 & 7 \\ \(Z_{2}\) & 1/3 & 1 & 3 & 5 \\ \(Z_{3}\) & 1/3 & 1/4 & 1 & 3 \\ \(Z_{4}\) & 1/7 & 1/5 & 1/3 & 1 \\ \hline \hlineThe procedures for obtaining numerical results are performed sequentially according to the theoretical principles of the applied method of linear convolution of criteria. The matrices of pairwise comparison constructed below are used to calculate the numerical indicators of the utility functions of the factors involved in alternative options. Additional initial data in this case are the refined weight values of the Pareto set factors. Taking into account the system of Equation (7), it is necessary, in addition to the weight indicators of the factors, to determine the utility functions corresponding to them \(u_{ij}\) (\(i=1,\ldots,4;j=1,2,3\)). Matrices of pairwise comparison are formed, which reproduce the alternative preferences in relation to the shares of factors involved in the design of options AW1, AW2 and AW3. The reliability of the results is checked according to the corresponding criteria: the maximum eigenvalue of the priority vector \(\lambda_{\max}\); the consistency index \(IU\); and the consistency ratio \(WU\). For the factor \(Z_{1}\) \"Testing level\", the matrix of pairwise comparison taking into account the shares of its efficiency in the alternatives specified in the field \"Assessing the importance of factors in alternatives in %\" in Table 7 will have the following form (Table 10):  
After processing the matrix, the following results are obtained: \(\lambda_{\max}=3.08\); \(IU=0.04\); \(WU=0.07\).