Conditional S-AHP and Learning Environment

1. Conditional S-AHP and Learning Environment

2. Conditional S-AHP • The Conditional Stratified Analytic Hierarchy Process (Conditional S-AHP) is a prioritization technique that takes the preferences, business goals and high-level objectives of a given group of stakeholders into account in order to find the relative priority and importance of the available software options [Ognjanovic et al 2011]. • In other words, S-AHP helps the stakeholders find the most suitable set of features for their target application by creating a prioritization over all of the available features based on their preferences and objectives.

3. Sue? John? Ana? Tomorrow is exam in database design ! ??? • I prefer good students or good senior students from my department, friends with a good knowledge in the field of databases, a friend who quickly gives the answer. • I also prefer the conversation in my native language and someone who is interested in F2F contact. FIND HELP!!! REQUIEREMENTS???

4. Concerns/ Tags • High-level objectives and goals of the stakeholders are specified and are referred to as concerns. • Each concern is annotated with a set of qualifier tags which are different possible enumerations for that concern DEPARMENT- (tags: the same as Tom’s, different from Tom’s) FIELDS OF PROFFESIONAL SPECIALIZATION -(tags: the same, not completely same but related, completely different) SPOKEN LANGUAGES-(tags: goodLevel, mediumLevel, lowLevel, unknownLanguage) MESSAGE RESPONSE TIME - (tags: short, medium, long)

5. Once these concerns are identified, the conversations that need to be prioritized are interrelated with the concerns! Sue is a professional in database development, very quick in replying but her spoken language is not the best for me! ??? Johnis a good student from my department but does not reply to messages quickly!

6. Solutions vs Different requirements CASE 1: If the response time is the most important concern Sue will receive a higher importance and priority CASE 2: If the same department and the same language are more essential conversation with John will be more useful. CASE 3: If Tom defines his requirement as: “if someone is a good student at his school, then response time is more important than spoken language, otherwise, the opposite is the case” John will be more appropriate for conversation than Sue

7. Conditional S-AHP includes the following steps: 1. Define elative importance 1a. for each pair of concerns. 1b. for each pair of qualifier tags of each concern 2. Define and annotate available conversations 3. Rank available conversations. 3a. For each conditional requirement between concerns, conditions are checked and priorities satisfying all conditions are chosen 3b. Filter out less important concerns if you want

8. 3c. For each conditional requirement between the qualifier tags of the most significant concerns, conditions are checked and local priorities which satisfy all conditions are chosen. 3d. Based on the selected priorities of concerns and local priorities of its qualifier tags, global priorities are calculated. Conditional S-AHP is: very easy to perform - based on a simple pair-wise comparison method. - it can be inexpensively implemented in a spreadsheet program such as MS Excel with additional usage of any program for checking satisfaction of conditions in conditionally defined requirements.

9. Illustrative example Traditionally, 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 are used to represent the degree of importance of different options over each other. They show equality, slight value, strong value, very strong and extreme value, respectively. Tom’s requirements for the level of concerns: The response time is much more important than the same school and good students.

10. The same language is more important than the other concerns except the response time If someone is a good or very good student at his school, than the response time is more important than the spoken language, otherwise it is the opposite

11. Based on these requirements, the matrix for the level of concerns should be filled as:

12. Low response time is much more important than high response time and more important than medium response time; Tom’s requirements for the level of qualifier tags: If a language is not one of those that one is not familiar with at all, the same school is important, otherwise it is extremely important

13. Based on these requirements, the matrix for the level of qualifier tags should be filled as:

14. A language in the set of languages that one is wel familiar with is extremely important in comparison to the languages that one is not familiar with at all A language that one is moderately familiar with is very much important in comparison to the languages that one is not familiar with at all

15. A very good student is much more appropriate than a good one and extremely important in comparison to a bad student If students are from the same school, a good student is more important then a bad one, otherwise he/she is much more important than a bad student.

16. Based on these requirements, the matrixes for the level of qualifier tags should be filled as:

17. Local priorities - can be calculated based on the standard AHP algorithm as follows: the level of concerns-- the level of qualifier tags --

18. John: student.veryGood, school.same, timeResponse.medium, spokenLanguage.goodLevel timeResponse --0.55, spokenLanguage-- 0.25, School-- 0.10, student-- 0.10 timeResponse.medium-- 0.19, spokenlanguage.good-- 0.54, school.same-- 0.75, student.veryGood-- 0.72.

19. Global ranks :::::: timeResponse.medium--0.19 * 0.55 = 0.1045, spokenlanguage.good -- 0.54 * 0.25 = 0.135, school.same--0.75 * 0.10 = 0.075, student.veryGood -- 0.72 * 0.10 = 0.072. John’s final rank is the average sum --- 0.096!

20. SUE::: timeResponse -0.55, spokenLanguage - 0.25, school - 0.10, student - 0.10; student.veryGood -0.72, school.different-0.25, timeResponse.low-0.66, spokenLanguage.medium- 0.22. SUE’s rank: (0.55*0.66 +0.25*0.22 +0.10*0.25+ 0.10*0.72)/4=0.128 0.128> 0.096 Contact SUE for help!!!

21. Future directives • How and when students can define their requirements? • Available conversations should be annotated based on the concerns important for the student. • Transitivity of the friendship relation.