Microsoft Word 11 147 Bileviciene Bileviciute Parazinskaite docx

ISSN 2071-789X 
 
RECENT ISSUES IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 8, No 4, 2015 
103
Table 6. Experts’ evaluation scoreboard. Estimates of factors’ importance 
Factors 
Expert 
1 2 3 4 ... 
m-1 m 
1 s
11
s
12
s
13
s
14
... 
s
1(m-1)
s
1m
2 s
21
s
22
s
23
s
24
... 
s
2(m-1)
s
2m
3 s
31
s
32
s
33
s
34
... 
s
3(m-1)
s
3m
4 s
41
s
42
s
43
s
44
... 
s
4(m-1)
s
4m
... ... ... ... ... ... 
... 
... 
n-1 s
(n-1)1
s
(n-1)2
s
(n-1)3
s
(n-1)4
… 
s
(n-1)1(m-1)
s
(n-1)m
n s
n1
s
n2
s
n3
s
n4
… 
s
n(m-1)
s
nm
Source: own work. 
 
Here s
ij
– factor significance estimates, where i = 1,…,n, j = 1,…,m. In this case n = 12, o 
m = 20. 
Method 1. There were analysing only factors’ evaluations, as the results from the 
answers to question 1. 
In this case, n experts evaluated m alternatives by using the same scale. Their 
assessment result – matrix 
ij
x , i=1,…,n; j=1,…,m , where 
ij
x  – matrix of all factors’ 
evaluation by all experts;
 x
ij
– 
i- th expert j- th factor estimate; i = 1,…,n, j = 1,…,m; in this 
case 
n = 12, o m = 20. 
The factor’s relative importance coefficient 
t
j
I
was evaluated as a first step in an 
iterative manner to 
t = 0 giving for coefficients the equal weighting values: 
m
I
j
1
0
=
, 
j=1,…,m. 
A further step 
t = 1,2, ... important coefficients were adjusted by formulas (Dzemyda 
et al., 2007): 
∑
=
−
⋅
=
m
j
ij
t
j
t
i
x
I
x
1
1
,
j=1,…,m
 
(2) 
∑∑
=
=
⋅
=
n
i
m
j
ij
t
i
t
x
x
S
1
1
(3) 
∑
∑
=
=
=
⋅
⋅
=
n
i
m
j
t
j
ij
t
i
t
t
j
I
x
x
S
I
1
1
1
,
1
, (4) 
here:
x
ij
– i- th expert j- th factor estimate; 
t
i
x  – t iteration of i- th expert estimate; 
i = 1,…,n, j = 1,…,m; in this case n = 12, o m = 20; 
t
S  – t iteration of sum of all factors; 
t
j
I
– t iteration of j factor’s relative importance coefficient, calculations are repeating till the 
such condition: 
1
−
−
t
j
t
j
I
I
< ε = 0,05 would be reached; 

---

Tatjana Bilevičienė, Eglė Bilevičiūtė, 
Gintarė Paražinskaitė 
ISSN 2071-789X 
 
RECENT ISSUES IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 8, No 4, 2015 
104
ε – chosen precision of calculation. 
Calculation results are presented in Table 7.
Method 2. Combining experts’ assessments of questions 1 and 2, a synthetic indicator 
is calculated. In this case, the criteria values are aggregated to give the total value on the basis 
of it the factors were assessed. The total value for the factor a is calculated as: 
 
∑
=
=
n
i
ij
j
j
q
a
Q
1
)
(
, (5) 
here Q
j
(a
j
) – the total value for the factor a
j
,
q
ij
 = x
ij
s
ij
– instantaneous value of criterion,
x
ij
– estimate of the significance of factors,
s
ij
– estimates of importance of factors, 
i = 1,…,n, j = 1,…,m. 
Criterion (experts’ evaluation) weight can be calculated as:
∑
=
=
m
j
j
j
j
j
j
a
Q
a
Q
W
1
)
(
)
(
, (6) 
Calculation results are presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Results of during empirical research used technologization environmental factors 
relative valuation by multiple criteria complex proportional evaluation method 
No Factors 
1 method 
2 method 
Relative value of factor 
1 2 
3 
4 
S1 Direct superior’s approach to information technology 
0,06 
0,08 
S2 Employee attitude to information technology 
0,06 
0,06 
S3 HR 
Education 
0,05 
0,06 
S4 The demographic situation 
0,04 
0,04 
S5 The employee's ability to use information technologies 
0,05 
0,05 
S6 
Information Technology operating risk (eg. fear of making a 
mistake, fear of the consequences of errors, etc.). 
0,04 0,01 
S7 Information Technology Security 
0,05 
0,05 
S8 Information technology benefits for activities 
0,06 
0,08 
S9 Direct contact support learning to use information technology 
0,05 
0,07 
S10 
Guaranteed technical support (ability to consult) after the 
introduction of innovations 
0,06 0,09 
S11 Organization’s 
decentralization 
0,05 
0,04 
S12 Organization’s 
climate 
0,05 
0,04 
S13 Personnel Administration Division organizational climate 
0,05 
0,06 
S14 Organizations 
formalization 
0,05 
0,05 
S15 The personnel department size 
0,04 
0,02 
S16 Personnel Administration Division serviced staff 
0,05 
0,04 
S17 
External bodies’ (eg. Ministry, Government) acceptance, support 
and financial conditions 
0,05 0,07 
S18 
The availability of new sources of work (where are looking for 
and what comes to work) 
0,05 0,05 

---

Tatjana B
Gintarė P
1 
S19 
P
t
S20 
P
c
c
Source:
I
assumed
A
greater 
attitude
support
proved 
factor a
technolo
departm
perform
Figure 
adminis
Source:
Bilevičienė, Egl
Paražinskaitė 
Publicity of p
the degree of
Political dire
confidence in
change) 
own work.
In assessing
d that the eq
After calcu
than averag
e to informa
t (ability to
that Wj = 0
according t
ogy-based 
ment size an
mance of org
2. Relative
stration serv
own work.
lė Bilevičiūtė, 
 
Ec
performance
f publicity) 
ection’s chan
n the staff ch
g the import
quivalent re
ulation by th
ge value (D
ation techn
o consult) a
0.05, has an
to experts, 
innovation
nd socio-po
ganization a
e value of e
vices
Economics & S
2 
e of the organ
nge (strategic
hanges becau
tance of the
elative impo
he first met
Direct super
nology, Info
after the in
n average va
have redu
– this is
litical elem
activities an
environmen
RECEN
Sociology, Vo
105
nization (pub
c priorities an
use of the rul
e factors acc
ortance of th
thod it was
rior approa
ormation te
ntroduction 
alue. When 
uced import
s the dem
ments of the 
nd change in
ntal factors
T ISSUES IN
Vol. 8, No 4, 20
blicity measu
nd political 
ling power 
T
cording the 
he 20 factor
s found that
ach to infor
chnology b
of innovat
compared 
tance in th
ographic s
environme
n political d
in the Lit
ISS
N ECONOM
015 
ures, 
0
0
Total
1
calculated r
s would be 
t 4 out of t
rmation tec
benefits, Gu
tions) and a
with the oth
he installati
situation, t
ent such as 
direction. 
huanian M
SN 2071-789X
MIC DEVELO
3 
,04 
,04 
,00 
relative val
1/20 or Wj 
the 20 facto
chnology, E
uaranteed t
another ten
hers, Five o
ion of info
the risk of
the publici
Ministries’ p
X 
OPMENT 
4 
0,03 
0,02 
1,00 
lues, it is 
= 0.05. 
ors have 
Employee 
technical 
n factors 
of the 20 
ormation 
f usage, 
ty of the 
ersonnel 

---

Tatjana Bilevičienė, Eglė Bilevičiūtė, 
Gintarė Paražinskaitė 
ISSN 2071-789X 
 
RECENT ISSUES IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 8, No 4, 2015 
106
After calculation by the second method, the distribution is quite different: there are 
more diverse and more accurate differentiation. Consistent with the above logic, the 
importance of all factors that value W
j
≥ 0,05, is with a high influence – positive and strong, 
and it is the stronger, the higher the relative estimate. All factors with lower than W
j
≤ 0,05 
value, have an average impact on the innovation process, and factors reached Wj = 0.1 
estimate the affect absolutely poorly the progress in the innovation process (Figure 2). 
When designing the study there was a decision to rely on statements of several 
theories about the factors that contribute to the innovation process. It can unequivocally state 
that such a decision was justified. Although not all chosen factors evaluated as having an 
impact, however, significantly extending the list of factors we saw the groups that should 
have been included. From the six, directly with IT related factors (the staff’s ability to use 
information technology, information technology usage risks (eg. the fear of making a mistake, 
fear of the consequences of errors, and so on), information technology security, information 
technology benefits for activities, direct contact support learning to use information 
technology, guaranteed technical support (ability to consult) after the introduction of 
innovations) the five factors inclusion worked. After calculation by method 2 – combining 
experts’ estimates of Question 1 and Question 2, a synthetic index was calculated, which 
helped to reveal more clearly the role of each factor in the general population. This basically 
enriched both theory and model and its use helps to adapt technology innovations’ research.