Concept Evaluation using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP):

This section describes the benchmarking of concepts using the AHP. The first set of
alternatives exists for the choices of User Interface (UI), whose AHP test is shown below:
Note: each criterion has a value between 0 and 5
Category:
User Interface
Criteria (Weight) Mobile Application Manual (No UI) PC with Program
Cost (20%) 3 4 1
Ease of Use (20%) 5 1 2
Processing Speed (20%) 4 1 5
Scalability (40%) 4 1 2
Total Score 4 1.6 2.4

The best alternative is using a Mobile Application UI.

Similarly, the second set of alternatives exists for the choices of the Method of Scheduling,
whose AHP test is shown below:
Note: each criterion has a value between 0 and 5
Category:
Method of Scheduling
Criteria (Weight) Historic Data Manual (No Adaptive Scheduling
Scheduling) with Options
Cost Savings (60%) 1 0 5
Ease of Use (20%) 3 5 2
Processing Speed (10%) 3 5 0
Scalability (10%) 2 5 1
Total Score 1.7 2 3.5

The best alternative is using Adaptive Scheduling.

 The third set of alternatives exists for the choices of the Plugs, whose AHP test is shown
below:
Note: each criterion has a value between 0 and 5
Category:
Plugs
Criteria (Weight) Sonoff Pow R2 Edimax SP Wemo Mini Sonoff S31 US TP Link Kasa
2101 Wv2 Smart Plug
Cost (60%) 5 3 3 2 1
Ease of Use (20%) 4 3 2 2 2
Processing Speed 3 4 4 5 5
(10%)
Flexibility (10%) 3 4 4 4 5
Total Score 4.4 3.2 3 2.5 2

The best alternative is the Sonoff Pow R2.

Finally, the fourth set of alternatives exists for the choices of the Programming Langauge,
whose AHP test is shown below:

Note: each criterion has a value between 0 and 5

Category:
Programming Language
Criteria (Weight) Java C++ MATLAB/Simulink
Licensing Cost (20%) 3 3 0
Ease of Use (40%) 1 2 5
Flexibility (20%) 2 3 4
Scalability (20%) 4 3 3
Total Score 2.2 2.6 3.4
The best alternative is using MATLAB/Simulink.