Prioritisation of Factors that Influence the Digital Platform Selection in Agriculture

In our previous research, we identified a list of factors that influence the digital platform selection by producers of agricultural products and a list of factors that influence customers' digital platform selection. The next question that becomes a focus of our interest is related to the prioritization of those factors. The first results suggest that some factors have a higher impact on producers (or customers) than others when deciding on digital platform selection in agriculture. In this paper, we will present several approaches that can be used to prioritize factors. Those methods are: direct assessment method, reciprocal ranks, SWING, pairwise comparison, analytical hierarchy process, analytical network process, and SNAP method. Some of those methods are simpler, and some are complex. In general, simpler methods are less, and the complex methods are more precise in terms of prioritization. On the other side, simpler methods are more understandable to the average customers (or producers) in terms of application than the complex methods. We analyzed all prioritizations methods and suggested the most appropriate method having a mind on the complexity of the method (understanding by users) and their precisions.

[1]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  DECISION MAKING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS , 2008 .

[2]  Nikola Kadoić,et al.  Differences in prioritization of the BSC’s strategic goals using AHP and ANP methods , 2018, Journal of information and organizational sciences.

[3]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Book Reviews : Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improv ing Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998, 136 pages, $26.00 , 1998 .

[4]  Nina Begicevic,et al.  Structuring e-learning multi-criteria decision making problems , 2017, 2017 40th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO).

[5]  Twenty-One Key Factors to Choose an IoT Platform: Theoretical Framework and Its Applications , 2020, IEEE Internet of Things Journal.

[6]  Katarina Tomičić-Pupek,et al.  Decision making on Digital Platforms in Agriculture , 2020, 2020 43rd International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO).

[7]  Mariya A. Sodenkamp,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Measurement Processes: The Measurement of Intangibles Decision Making under Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks , 2010 .

[8]  Sumeet Gupta,et al.  Value-based Adoption of Mobile Internet: An empirical investigation , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..

[9]  Nikola Kadoić,et al.  The ANP Representation of the BSC , 2017 .

[10]  T. Saaty Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process , 1986 .

[11]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Network Process – Dependence and Feedback in Decision-Making: Theory and Validation Examples , 2006 .

[12]  Sabine Gruber Personal Trust and System Trust in the Sharing Economy: A Comparison of Community- and Platform-Based Models , 2020, Frontiers in Psychology.

[13]  Igor Pihir,et al.  The Role of Perception in the Adoption of Digital Platforms in Agriculture , 2020, 2020 43rd International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO).

[14]  T. Saaty Fundamentals of the analytic network process — Dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network , 2004 .

[15]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process: Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks , 2013 .

[16]  Nikola Kadoić,et al.  Characteristics of the Analytic Network Process, a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method , 2018, Croatian Operational Research Review.

[17]  Nina Begicevic,et al.  A new method for strategic decision-making in higher education , 2018, Central Eur. J. Oper. Res..