Submitted:
11 September 2023
Posted:
12 September 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Research review
2.1. Digital transformation of construction enterprises
2.2. Maturity theory
2.3. Digital maturity models
3. Construction of the digital transformation maturity evaluation model (DTCMM) for construction enterprises
3.1. Construction of the DTCMM evaluation model
3.2. Description of specific indicators
3.2.1. Digital strategy
3.2.2. Digital business applications
3.2.3. Digital technology capabilities
3.2.4. Data capabilities
3.2.5. Digital organizational capabilities
3.2.6. Change management
|
Evaluation model of digital transformation maturity of construction enterprises (A) |
First-Level | Number | Second-Level | Number |
| Digital strategy |
B1 |
Digital strategic planning matching degree The intensity of enterprises to promote digital transformation Government department policy incentives and support strength |
C11 C12 C13 |
|
| Digital industry Application |
B2 |
HRM Business contract management Productive technology management Quality and safety management |
C21 C22 C23 C24 |
|
| Digital technology capabilities |
B3 |
New technical personnel Digital infrastructure Digital management platform function degree Digital technology and the construction site integration degree Digital innovation and iteration ability |
C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 |
|
| Data ability |
B4 |
Data collection and processing capacity Data analysis ability Data security |
C41 C42 C43 |
|
| Digital organizational ability |
B5 |
Digital organizational structure and processes Corporate culture The degree of employee digital transformation |
C51 C52 C53 |
|
| Change management |
B6 |
Digital management mode Change management staff skills |
C61 C62 |
3.3. Maturity level
3.4. Selection of evaluation methods
4. Analysis of influencing factors of digital transformation maturity of construction enterprises based on AHP-DEMATEL
4.1. Specific steps of the AHP method
4.1.1. Build hierarchical models
4.1.2. Determination of judgment matrix
4.1.3. Compute eigenvalues and eigenvectors
4.1.4. Level single-order consistency check
4.1.5. Calculation weights
| One-Level Metric |
Digitalize Strategy (B1) | Digitalize Business Application (B2) | Digitalize Technical Capability (B3) | Data Ability (B4) | Figure Organizing Ability (B5) | Transform Management (B6) | Weight (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Digitalize Strategy (B1) | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 9.95 |
| Digitalize Business Application (B2) | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 29.53 |
| Digitalize Technical Capability (B3) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 21.50 |
| Data Ability (B4) | 2 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 19.11 |
| Figure Organizing Ability (B5) | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 9.95 |
| Transform Management (B6) | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 9.95 |
4.1.6. Calculate the weight of indicators at all levels
|
Standard Layer (Level I Index) |
Weight (%) |
Index Layer (Secondary Index) |
Weight (%) |
Base Weight (%) |
| B1 | 9.95 | C11 | 49.05 | 4.88 |
| C12 | 19.76 | 1.97 | ||
| C13 | 31.19 | 3.10 | ||
| B2 | 29.53 | C21 | 16.46 | 4.86 |
| C22 | 20.63 | 6.09 | ||
| C23 | 34.17 | 10.09 | ||
| C24 | 28.75 | 8.49 | ||
| B3 | 21.50 | C31 | 13.51 | 2.90 |
| C32 | 7.85 | 1.69 | ||
| C33 | 12.71 | 2.73 | ||
| C34 | 39.60 | 8.51 | ||
| C35 | 26.33 | 5.66 | ||
| B4 | 19.11 | C41 | 31.19 | 5.96 |
| C42 | 49.05 | 9.37 | ||
| C43 | 19.76 | 3.78 | ||
| B5 | 9.95 | C51 | 31.19 | 3.10 |
| C52 | 19.76 | 1.97 | ||
| C53 | 49.05 | 4.88 | ||
| B6 | 9.95 | C61 | 66.67 | 6.63 |
| C62 | 33.33 | 3.32 |
4.2. DEMATEL method-specific steps
4.2.1. Determination of initial impact matrix
4.2.2. Determination of normalized impact matrix
4.2.3. Determination of comprehensive impact matrix
4.2.4. Computing centrality and causality
4.3. Calculate the AHP-DEMATEL combination weights
4.4. Comprehensive assessment calculation method
| Question | Score | The Meaning of the Score |
|---|---|---|
| Do you think the digital strategy designated by your company is suitable for the current development situation of the enterprise? | 0 | Fully not in line with the company’s current development of the situation |
| 1 | This is not in line with the current development situation of the company | |
| 2 | Generally in line with the company’s current development | |
| 3 | In line with the company’s current development of the situation | |
| 4 | This is very much in line with the current development of the company | |
| Do you think your company has designated digitalWhether the strategy can be realized? | 0 | It cannot be achieved at all |
| 1 | It cannot be fully realized | |
| 2 | To be able to implement a part of it | |
| 3 | To achieve the most | |
| 4 | Can be realized |
| One-Level Metric | Single Layer Weight (%) | Two-Stage Metric | Single Layer Weight (%) | Foundation Weight (%) | Assemble Weight (%) | Synthesize Grade | Assemble Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Digitalize strategy (B1) | 9.95 | C11 | 49.05 | 4.88 | 4.90 | 2.2 | 0.108 |
| C12 | 19.76 | 1.97 | 2.13 | 1.8 | 0.038 | ||
| C13 | 31.19 | 3.10 | 2.45 | 2.6 | 0.064 | ||
| Digitalize business application (B2) | 29.53 | C21 | 16.46 | 4.86 | 4.88 | 2 | 0.098 |
| C22 | 20.63 | 6.09 | 6.46 | 2.2 | 0.142 | ||
| C23 | 34.17 | 10.09 | 11.10 | 1.2 | 0.133 | ||
| C24 | 28.75 | 8.49 | 9.17 | 1.2 | 0.110 | ||
| Digitalize technical competence (B3) | 19.11 | C31 | 13.51 | 2.90 | 3.41 | 0.8 | 0.027 |
| C32 | 7.85 | 1.69 | 1.86 | 2.0 | 0.037 | ||
| C33 | 12.71 | 2.73 | 3.05 | 1.0 | 0.031 | ||
| C34 | 39.60 | 8.51 | 9.19 | 1.0 | 0.092 | ||
| C35 | 26.33 | 5.66 | 6.01 | 0.8 | 0.048 | ||
| Data ability (B4) | 18.99 | C41 | 31.19 | 5.96 | 6.32 | 0.6 | 0.038 |
| C42 | 49.05 | 9.37 | 10.67 | 0.6 | 0.064 | ||
| C43 | 19.76 | 3.78 | 3.21 | 0.8 | 0.026 | ||
| Digital organization ability (B5) | 9.95 | C51 | 31.19 | 3.10 | 1.97 | 1.6 | 0.032 |
| C52 | 19.76 | 1.97 | 1.10 | 1.4 | 0.015 | ||
| C53 | 49.05 | 4.88 | 5.08 | 1.2 | 0.061 | ||
| Change management (B6) | 9.95 | C61 | 66.67 | 6.63 | 5.12 | 1.0 | 0.051 |
| C62 | 33.33 | 3.32 | 1.92 | 0.8 | 0.015 |
5. Evaluation results and analysis
5.1. Comprehensive impact analysis
5.2. Analysis of the interaction between factors
5.3. Recommendations for digital transformation
- Blend Digital Tech with Construction Sites: While digital technology is vital for transformation, applying it on construction sites is equally important. Using tools like BIM (Building Information Modeling) helps combine digital tech and real-world construction, boosting efficiency and quality across the construction process.
- Advanced Production Tech Digitization: Managing production technology is key in construction. Digital tech can enhance this management’s precision and efficiency. Introducing digital tools such as process planning systems and production planning control systems can greatly improve productivity and product quality.
- Boost Quality and Safety Digitization: Quality and safety management are pivotal for construction businesses. Using digital tech elevates these aspects. Embrace tools like intelligent inspection and safety monitoring systems to digitize quality and safety management, enhancing both levels.
- Enhance Digital Transformation Assessment: Digital transformation is complex. Establishing a sound assessment model guides companies. Constantly improving this model helps evaluate every aspect of transformation, aiding implementation and optimization.
- Nurture Digital Talent Continuously: Achieving digital transformation requires skilled individuals. Building a robust digital talent pool is essential. Companies should foster and recruit digital talent, collaborating with universities and offering in-house training to enhance their quality and capabilities.
6. Conclusion
Funding
References
- Amanda P, Paavo R, Joona K, et al. Digital transformation of the value proposition: A single case study in the media industry. Journal of Business Research 2022, 150, 311–325. [Google Scholar]
- George B, Florin P, Cosmin T. Digital Transformation of Higher Education System. International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION 2022, 28, 158–168. [Google Scholar]
- Senhao, Z. Digital Transformation, Regional Economic Development and High-quality Development of the Logistics Industry—An Evidence from China. Academic Journal of Business & Management 2022, 4, 41–45. [Google Scholar]
- Antonio L, Giovanni S, Francesco M. Editorial: Entrepreneurial development and digital transformation in creative and cultural industries: trends, opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 2022, 28, 1929–1939. [Google Scholar]
- Chenxi Z, Pengyu C, Yuanyuan H. The impact of digital transformation on corporate sustainability- new evidence from Chinese listed companies. Frontiers in Environmental Science 2022, 10, 1047418. [Google Scholar]
- Ming K H, Lu C T, Shan Y C. The effects of institutional pressures on shipping digital transformation in Taiwan. Maritime Business Review 2022, 7, 175–191. [Google Scholar]
- Guangqiang L, Shenghua W. Digital transformation and trade credit provision: Evidence from China. Research in International Business and Finance 2023, 64, 101805. [Google Scholar]
- Marinko S, María D L M D O, Samuel R-N. Digital transformation and European small and medium enterprises (SMEs): A comparative study using digital economy and society index data. International Journal of Information Management 2023, 68, 102594. [Google Scholar]
- Pengyu C, Yuanyuan H. Digital transformation and corporate environmental performance: The moderating role of board characteristics. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2022, 29, 1757–1767. [Google Scholar]
- YAO Z, XUEMENG G. Digital Transformation of Enterprises and the Governance of Executive Corruption: Empirical Evidence Based on Text Analysis. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM) 2022, 30, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- YU X, ZHEN C, FRANCIS B, et al. How does digital transformation affect agricultural enterprises’ pro-land behavior: The role of environmental protection cognition and cross-border search. Technology in Society 2022, 70, 101991. [Google Scholar]
- YUFENG C, JING X. Digital transformation and firm cost stickiness: Evidence from China. Finance Research Letters 2023, 52, 103510. [Google Scholar]
- YUHAO N, WEN W, SAI W, et al. Breaking barriers to innovation: The power of digital transformation. Finance Research Letters 2023, 51, 103457. [Google Scholar]
- ZHENGYI Z, JUN J, SHIJING L, et al. Digital transformation of incumbent firms from the perspective of portfolios of innovation. Technology in Society 2023, 72, 102149. [Google Scholar]
- JIE Z, ZONG-XIAO X, KUN-XIANG D. The research on the influzence Mechanism of Absorptive Capacity on Organizational Agility in Enterprive Digital Transformation: The Chain Mediation Role of IT innovation and Process Innovation. Journal of Central University of Finance & Economics 2023, 1, 105–214. [Google Scholar]
- FEIEI Z, XIAOLI Y. Research on Influencing Factors of Construction Enterprise Digital Transformation Based on ISM-AHP. Construction Economy 2022, 43, 66–73. [Google Scholar]
- YINYIN G, ZONGZHI D. Research on the Critical Path of Digital Transformation of Construction Enterprises Considering Scale Differences. Construction Economy 2022, 43, 83–90. [Google Scholar]
- JANICKI T, J. Organisational Structures As an Expression of the Maturity of Project Management in the Enterprise. Torun Business Review 2014, 13, 193–208. [Google Scholar]
- SHEHZAD H M F, IBRAHIM R B, YUSOF A F, et al. The role of interoperability dimensions in building information modelling. Computers in Industry 2021, 129, 103444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- METTLER T, EURICH M. WHAT IS THE RIGHT SERVICE? A MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MODEL BASED ON ‘STEP’. In Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Business (ICE-B), Seville, Spain, 18–21 July 2011.
- LAHRMANN G, MARX F, METTLER T, et al. Inductive Design of Maturity Models: Applying the Rasch Algorithm for Design Science Research. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), Milwaukee, WI, 5–6 May 2011.
- ANONYMOUS. Raytheon Company; Raytheon Missile Systems Achieves Capability Maturity Model Integration Level 5. Defense & Aerospace Week, 2009.
- ANONYMOUS. Ducommun’s Miltec Unit Achieves Capability Maturity Model Integration Level 2 Rating. Wireless News, 2011.
- CINDRIĆ, J. ZRELOST ORGANIZACIJE (CMMI—Capability Maturity Model Integration). Magistra Iadertina 2009, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CINDRIĆ, J. CMMI—Capability Maturity Model Integration. Magistra Iadertina 2009, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DANIEL D A, RUSS H, DAVID M H, et al. The Capability Maturity Model Integrated as a Market Engineering Maturity Model. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology (IJSSMET) 2021, 12, 175–196. [Google Scholar]
- KIM D-Y, GRANT G. E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 2010, 12, 230–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SAMALIKOVA J, KUSTERS R J, TRIENEKENS J J M, et al. Process mining support for Capability Maturity Model Integration-based software process assessment, in principle and in practice. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 2014, 26, 714–728. [Google Scholar]
- YASSIEN, E. The challenges of capability maturity model integration application in the dynamic environment. International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management 2020, 12, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HAIQIANG, W. Performance Measurement of Construction Supply Chain Based on CSCM Maturity Model 2008.
- SINING W, DANDAN L. Applying the post-digital strategy of anexact architecture to non-standard design practices within the challenging construction contexts. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09982. [Google Scholar]
- KOMNINOS, N. Smart environments and smart growth: connecting innovation strategies and digital growth strategies. Int. J. of Knowledge-Based Development 2016, 7, 240–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PRESTON, ROB. Quit Dithering On Digital Business Strategy. Informationweek—Online, 2013.
- FRISHAMMAR J, CENAMOR J, CAVALLI-BJöRKMAN H, et al. Digital strategies for two-sided markets: A case study of shopping malls. Decision Support Systems 2018, 108, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ALIZADEH T, SIPE N. Vancouver’s Digital Strategy: Disruption, New Direction, or Business as Usual? International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR) 2016, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- JOHN O, IFAKA, S. H. A, et al. Modelling human resources management in times of uncertainty in the framing of inter-agency collaboration—an empirical investigation. Dynamics of Public Administration 2022, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EL-ADAWAY I H, ABOTALEB I S, EID M S, et al. Contract Administration Guidelines for Public Infrastructure Projects in the United States and Saudi Arabia: Comparative Analysis Approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 2018, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- M. Z. V, J.W.M. B. Indicator applied to production technology management in healthcare [Indicador de produção aplicado ao gerenciamento de tecnologia em saúde]. IFMBE Proceedings 2008, 18. [Google Scholar]
- BOGDANOVA I, DYMCHENKO O. Production quality and safety management in the corporate-type integrated structures in the agro-industrial complex. E3S Web of Conferences 2020, 175, 13013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LIU H, YU H, ZHOU H, et al. Research on the Influencing Factors of Construction Enterprises’ Digital Transformation Based on DEMATEL-TAISM. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HUI L, ZHENGJI H, JINGXIAO Z, et al. Systematic Identification of the Influencing Factors for the Digital Transformation of the Construction Industry Based on LDA-DEMATEL-ANP. Buildings 2022, 12, 1409. [Google Scholar]
- ZHANG G, WANG T, WANG Y, et al. Study on the Influencing Factors of Digital Transformation of Construction Enterprises from the Perspective of Dual Effects—A Hybrid Approach Based on PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES E, MEDICINE, ENGINEERING D O, et al. In Building Data Capacity for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research; National Academies Press.
- GOMI S, MASHIKO Y, HIRATA K, et al. Fabrication of perpendicular magnetic recording tape media with a data capacity of over-50TB using Si/NiFe/FeCoB soft magnetic underlayers. Physics Procedia 2011, 16, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NELSON, P. The noise in fiber could be used to increase data capacity. Network World (Online) 2019.
- KONSTANTINA R, IOANNIS P, GEORGIOS S. Investigating the Strategic Role of Digital Transformation Path of SMEs in the Era of COVID-19: A Bibliometric Analysis Using R. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- JIEPING C, AIJIA W. Research on the Digital Transformation Path of Commercial Banks from the Perspective of “Gyroscope Model”:Taking China Merchants Bank as an example. In Proceedings of the 2022 7th International Conference on Social Sciences and Economic Development (ICSSED 2022); 2022.
- XIAOHUI W, FUMIN W. Research on the Path of Digital Transformation of Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises Under the Backdrop of High-Quality Development. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Internet and Digital Economy (ICAID 2022); 2022.
- GALIMOVA M, GILEVA T, MUKHANOVA N, et al. Selecting the path of the digital transformation of business-models for industrial enterprises. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 2019, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- JELONEK D, NOWAKOWSKA-GRUNT J, ZIORA L. The Assessment of Construction Project Management Maturity Level in the Silesian Region in Poland. Advanced Materials Research 2014, 1020, 796–802. [Google Scholar]
- LABRADA A, SIGIFREDO, SIERRA L, et al. Considerations about company project management in Bogota, Colombia maturity level of project management. Revista EAN 2010, 60–87.
- MORAES R D O, KRUGLIANSKAS I. O gerente de projetos de TI em organizações com níveis de maturidade diferenciados The IT project manager in organizations with differentiated levels of maturity. Production 2012, 22, 839–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAUZI M N H, HASAN A, SAMAD N A, et al. Readiness Level Students in Electrical Engineering from the Aspect Technical Skills on the Formation Workability at Polytechnic. International Journal of Vocational Education and Training Research 2016, 2, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ERSHADI M J, TAGHIZADEH O Q, MOLANA S M H. Selection and performance estimation of Green Lean Six Sigma Projects: a hybrid approach of technology readiness level, data envelopment analysis, and ANFIS. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2021, 28, 29394–29411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- YUXUAN L, RYOSUKE S. Impact of Intellectualization of a Zoo through a FCEM-AHP and IPA Approach. Land 2023, 12, 243. [Google Scholar]
- SRDJEVIC B, LAKICEVIC M, SRDJEVIC Z. Fuzzy AHP Assessment of Urban Parks Quality and Importance in Novi Sad City, Serbia. Forests 2023, 14, 1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SAEED K, YOUSEF A, MOHAMMAD G, et al. Analyzing Green Construction Development Barriers by a Hybrid Decision-Making Method Based on DEMATEL and the ANP. Buildings 2022, 12, 1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ni, G.; Li, H.; Jin, T.; Hu, H.; Zhang, Z. Analysis of Factors Influencing the Job Satisfaction of New Generation of Construction Workers in China: A Study Based on DEMATEL and ISM. Buildings 2022, 12, 609. [Google Scholar]

| Researcher | Model Name | Coverage Dimension | Class Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| China Electronics Standardization Institute | Intelligent Manufacturing Capability Maturity Model | Design, production, logistics, sales, service, resource elements, interconnection, system integration, information integration, emerging business formats | Planned level, specification level, integration level, optimization level, leading level |
| Wang Rui | Digital Maturity Evaluation Model of Manufacturing Enterprises | Strategy, operational technology, cultural organization capability, ecosystem | Digital starter, digital upgrader, digital transformation, digital mature player, digital leader |
| LICHTBLAU K | IMPLUS-Industrie 4.0 Readiness | Strategy and organization, smart factory, efficient operations, smart products, data-driven services, employees | Layperson, beginner, intermediate, experienced, expert, top player |
| Zhu Hongcan, Fang Xinyue | Government data open API ecosystem maturity assessment model | Data quality assessment portal function optimization portal navigation design, map navigation design, data analytics design, information retrieval design, data statistics design |
Construction starts. Function complete Application extension Professional deep cultivation data ecology |
| McKinsey Company | Digital Media Maturity Model | Strategy, IT capabilities, culture, organization, and talent | Evolvers, market matchers, digital strivers, digital disruptors, ecology |
| LEYH C et al. | SIMMI 4.0 | Vertical integration, horizontal integration, digital product development, cross-sectional technical standards | Basic digitization, cross-departmental digitization, horizontal and vertical digitization, full digitization, optimized full digitization |
| Leino et al. | VTT Model of Digimaturity | Strategy, business model, customer impact, organization and process, talent and culture, IT | System shaper beginner, normative level, management level, excellent |
| -Score | Scaling Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Compared to the i element and the element j, the i element is very important |
| 4 | Element i is important compared to element j |
| 3 | Compared to element i and element j, element i is significantly important |
| 2 | The i element is slightly more important than the j element |
| 1 | The i element has the same degree of influence when compared to the j element |
| 1/2 | The i element is slightly unimportant compared to the j element |
| 1/3 | The i element is significantly insignificant as compared to the j element |
| 1/4 | Elements i compared to element j, element i is very unimportant |
| 1/5 | The i element compared to the j element, the i element is very unimportant |
| Level 1 Indicators | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 | B6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 |
| B2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| B3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| B4 | 2 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| B5 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 |
| B6 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1 | 1 |
| N-order | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RI value | 0.52 | 0.89 | 1.12 | 1.26 | 1.36 | 1.41 | 1.46 | 1.49 | 1.52 |



| Influence Degree d | Influence Degree c | Centra d D+C | Weight | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C11 | 2.155 | 1.978 | 4.133 | 0.052 |
| C12 | 2.267 | 2.215 | 4.482 | 0.056 |
| C13 | 1.664 | 1.6 | 3.264 | 0.041 |
| C21 | 1.773 | 2.429 | 4.202 | 0.052 |
| C22 | 1.742 | 2.656 | 4.397 | 0.055 |
| C23 | 1.961 | 2.613 | 4.573 | 0.057 |
| C24 | 1.947 | 2.51 | 4.458 | 0.056 |
| C31 | 2.978 | 1.892 | 4.87 | 0.061 |
| C32 | 2.864 | 1.718 | 4.581 | 0.057 |
| C33 | 2.341 | 2.275 | 4.616 | 0.058 |
| C34 | 2.543 | 1.938 | 4.481 | 0.056 |
| C35 | 2.561 | 1.866 | 4.427 | 0.055 |
| C41 | 2.268 | 2.118 | 4.387 | 0.055 |
| C42 | 2.492 | 2.269 | 4.761 | 0.059 |
| C43 | 1.629 | 1.88 | 3.508 | 0.044 |
| C51 | 1.369 | 1.277 | 2.646 | 0.033 |
| C52 | 1.108 | 1.236 | 2.344 | 0.029 |
| C53 | 1.486 | 2.834 | 4.32 | 0.054 |
| C61 | 1.519 | 1.66 | 3.18 | 0.04 |
| C62 | 1.357 | 1.061 | 2.418 | 0.03 |
| (%) | Centra d M (%) | Combination Weight z (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| C11 | 4.88 | 5.2 | 4.90 |
| C12 | 1.97 | 5.6 | 2.13 |
| C13 | 3.10 | 4.1 | 2.45 |
| C21 | 4.86 | 5.2 | 4.88 |
| C22 | 6.09 | 5.5 | 6.46 |
| C23 | 10.09 | 5.7 | 11.10 |
| C24 | 8.49 | 5.6 | 9.17 |
| C31 | 2.90 | 6.1 | 3.41 |
| C32 | 1.69 | 5.7 | 1.86 |
| C33 | 2.73 | 5.8 | 3.05 |
| C34 | 8.51 | 5.6 | 9.19 |
| C35 | 5.66 | 5.5 | 6.01 |
| C41 | 5.96 | 5.5 | 6.32 |
| C42 | 9.37 | 5.9 | 10.67 |
| C43 | 3.78 | 4.4 | 3.21 |
| C51 | 3.10 | 3.3 | 1.97 |
| C52 | 1.97 | 2.9 | 1.10 |
| C53 | 4.88 | 5.4 | 5.08 |
| C61 | 6.63 | 4 | 5.12 |
| C62 | 3.32 | 3 | 1.92 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).