UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

School of Business, Dehradun

Final Year Dissertation Report

On

Ranking of Barriers to the Adoption of Metaverse in MRO

Program

BBA - Aviation Management

2021-2024

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Totakura Bangar Raju Debajyoti Chakraborty

Professor SAP ID: 500089100

Department of Transportation Management Enrollment No: R460221006

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“It is not possible to prepare a project report without the assistance and encouragement of
other people. This one is certainly no exception.”

At the very outset of this report, I would like to extend my sincere obligation towards all the
people who have helped me in this endeavour. Without their active guidance, help,
cooperation & and encouragement, I would not have made headway in the project.

I am eternally grateful to Professor Totakura Bangar Raju for his conscientious direction and
encouragement in completing this assignment “Ranking of Barriers to the Adoption of
Metaverse in MRO” and I am also thankful to him for his excellent guidance and assistance
in completing this project in its current state. I am also grateful to Ucchita Sharma for guiding
me throughout this project.

I am grateful to the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies for providing me with this
opportunity.

Any absence in this brief acknowledgment does not imply a lack of appreciation.

2
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the dissertation report entitled "RANKING OF BARRIERS TO THE
ADOPTION OF METAVERSE IN MRO SERVICES" submitted by Debajyoti Chakraborty
for the partial fulfillment of requirements for Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) -
Aviation Management is a bonafide record of the synopsis work carried out by him under my
supervision and guidance. The content of the report in full or in parts has not been submitted
to any other Institute or University for the award of any other degree or diploma.

Professor Totakura Bangar Raju

Department of Transportation Management
School of Business, UPES, Kandoli

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No. Chapters Page No.

Executive Summary – Abstract 7

1)
Chapter 1: Introduction to the study

1.1) Importance of the study 8-9

2)
1.2) Problem Statement

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1) Literature Review Summary

10-21
3)
2.2) Literature Review Table

2.3) Research Gap

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1) Research Objectives

22-27
4)
3.2) Model used

3.3) Data Collection

Chapter 4: Data Analysis

4.1) Data Findings 28-49

5)
4.2) Discussions

Chapter 5: Conclusion & Limitations

5.1) Conclusion 50-52

6)
5.2) Limitations

Appendices 53-59
7)
References 60-62
8)

4
 LIST OF TABLES
S. No. Tables Page No.

Table 1 – Literature Review Summary 11

1)
Table 2 – Literature Review Table 12
2)
Table 3 – Main Factors and their Sub-Factors 19
3)
Table 4 – Description of the Sub-Factors 20-21
4)
Table 5 – Description of the Likert Scale 26
5)
Table 6 – Setting up the Triangular Fuzzy Numbers (TFNs) 27
6)
Table 7 – Profile of the Respondents 28
7)
Table 8 –Consistency Index (CI) & Consistency Ratio (CR) Table 30
8)
Table 9 – Calculation of Global Weights & Final Ranking of Factors 47-48
9)

5
 LIST OF FIGURES
S. No. Figures Page No.

Figure 1 – Flow Chart of Dissertation Report 23

1)
Figure 2 – A Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN) Chart 27
2)
Figure 1 – Flow Chart of Fuzzy AHP Data Analysis 29
3)

6
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – ABSTRACT

The aviation industry has witnessed the emergence of various technologies over the past
decade, including artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and metaverse. Metaverse is one of
the upcoming technologies that is poised to become one of the leaders when it comes to aircraft
maintenance. Using metaverse and virtual reality technology, not only airlines can reduce the
aircraft on ground (AOG) times for aircraft, thus enabling greater efficiency and utilization of
the aircraft leading to maximization in revenue, but it would also be a huge boon for aircraft
maintenance engineers as they would be able to look for potential technical snags in the aircraft
beforehand using virtual reality technology. Airlines will also be able to save costs incurred in
aircraft maintenance and the technology will also help in ensuring safety. Moreover, creating
digital twins of aircraft will provide a new realm for prospective students in the field of aircraft
engineering and will help them gain better practical knowledge of different kinds of aircraft.

However, before the potential usage of such robust technology by airline companies, it becomes
important to study the possible limitations that might occur before and during the
implementation of such kind of technology. This paper examines the importance of such
barriers and ranks them through the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) technique by
taking the opinions and suggestions of industry experts in the field of aircraft maintenance.
This paper considers several factors ranging from technical implementation, data security, and
cost and ranks them in a hierarchical order from the most important to the least important to
present a broad view of the implementation of metaverse in the aircraft maintenance industry.

Upon collection and analysis of the responses, it was found that the 5 most important barrier
factors include “Security Access Control”, “Cost-Benefit Analysis”, “Compliance
Monitoring”, “Financial Impact” and “Training Program Development” in this hierarchical
order. This research study will help assess the potential barriers that might arise in the adoption
of metaverse and will aid in future research for preparation of a futuristic, safe, and
comprehensive plan for the implementation of metaverse in the aircraft maintenance industry.
Future studies can look to assess the potential change in perceptions of this technology over
time and potentially identify more barrier factors.

7
 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
The world of technology is in a constant state of evolution, redefining the way we live, work,
and interact with our surroundings. Over the past few years, the concept of the metaverse has
emerged as a revolutionary development, poised to reshape how we engage with digital
environments. The metaverse is envisioned as an expansive, interconnected virtual realm where
individuals can interact, socialize, and conduct business in a fully immersive and
interconnected digital space. The word “Metaverse” is often traced to Neal Stephenson’s 1992
dystopic, cyberpunk novel Snow Crash. (Hollensen et al., 2023) The Metaverse is a concept
used to refer to a virtual world that exists in parallel to the physical world. (Njoku, J. N.,
Nwakanma, C. I., Amaizu, G. C., & Kim, D. S. (2023) The potential applications of the
metaverse extend across various sectors, including education, healthcare, and security, offering
boundless possibilities for innovation. (Al-Ghaili et al., 2022)

About Metaverse
As per (Njoku et al., 2023), the Metaverse is a mixture of two words “Meta”, meaning
transcending, and “Universe”. It is a digital environment that is connected to the physical realm,
often with the usage of devices such as virtual reality (VR) headsets. The usage and application
of metaverse has increased manifolds in the past few years. In the aviation industry, this
technology is now being looked to be used for streamlining the aircraft maintenance process.
Metaverse is one of the upcoming technologies that is poised to become one of the leaders
when it comes to aircraft maintenance. Using metaverse and virtual reality technology, not only
airlines can reduce the aircraft on ground (AOG) times for aircraft, thus enabling greater
efficiency and utilization of the aircraft leading to maximization in revenue, but it would also
be a huge boon for aircraft maintenance engineers as they would be able to look for potential
technical snags in the aircraft beforehand using virtual reality technology. Airlines will also be
able to save costs incurred in aircraft maintenance and the technology will also help in ensuring
safety.

Despite the considerable potential benefits, there are notable barriers that impede the effective
implementation of the metaverse within the aircraft maintenance sector. These barriers include
technological challenges, user adoption and training issues, data security concerns,
interoperability issues, and cost implications. (Abdulrahman et al., 2023) To fully comprehend
the scope and implications of these barriers, it is essential to conduct a comprehensive
investigation and ranking of the barriers that stand in the way of seamless metaverse integration
in MRO.

This paper examines the importance of such barriers and ranks them through the analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) technique by taking the opinions and suggestions of industry experts
in the field of aircraft maintenance. This paper considers several factors ranging from
technological to economic and social factors and ranks them in a hierarchical order from the
most important to the least important to present a broad view of the implementation of
metaverse in the aircraft maintenance industry. This research study will help assess the
potential barriers that might arise in the implementation of metaverse and will aid in future

8
research for preparing a futuristic, safe, and comprehensive plan for the implementation of
metaverse in the aircraft maintenance industry.

1.1) Importance of the study

This research study carries much importance due to the lack of research on the limitations of
metaverse with respect to aircraft MRO services. Further, this study is also important to
understand the primary and most important barriers that might hinder the use of metaverse in
aircraft MRO services by ranking them through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model.
This study also contributes to providing a general perspective of the experts in aircraft MRO
services to help aviation companies better understand the user perspective before implementing
metaverse, virtual reality, and digital twin technologies.

The study will also help airline companies to consider the implementation of metaverse
technology in aircraft maintenance in a clearer way as industry experts will highlight which
factor is the most important while implementing this technology. This will pave the way for
better planning before implementing such a technology that can provide great benefits to all
the stakeholders of the aircraft maintenance industry.

1.2) Problem statement

This research study is important to investigate the barriers to the implementation of metaverse
in the aircraft maintenance industry to contribute to the ongoing research on metaverse, digital
twin, and virtual reality technologies. Through this research study, a comprehensive analysis
of the barriers to implementing metaverse in aircraft maintenance is made to gain a deeper
understanding of this robust technology and use it in a safe, efficient, and secure manner. There
are multi-fold benefits and applications of the metaverse in different sectors. (Abdulrahman et
al., 2023) However, there are certain barriers that arise during the implementation of this
technology. Through an extensive literature review, a total of 5 Main Factors & 19 Sub-Factors
were identified for this research study.

9
 CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1) Literature Review

The metaverse is an emerging technology that is quickly gaining attention of academicians,

engineers, and industry experts worldwide. In the aviation industry too, metaverse is expected
to create a strong impact. These include several areas such as aircraft maintenance (Siyaev &
Jo, 2021), airline marketing (Üniversitesi, n.d.), aviation training, etc. (Klotz & Stendal, n.d.).
This section of literature review explores the different aspects of metaverse technology ranging
from papers discussing the various definitions of metaverse, about metaverse’s potential
application areas, to its potential adoption barriers. A total of 25 literature papers were
examined for this study. The research study by (Abdulrahman et al. 2023) explains the current
state of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and blockchain technology, its potential challenges and
application areas in the aerospace industry and evaluates the future work that can be performed
to gain insights on the real-world implementation of such technologies in the aerospace
industry.

The research study by (Hoi et al., 2023) explores the barriers to adoption of metaverse in Hong
Kong’s construction industry thus greatly contributing to this study of barriers to adoption of
metaverse in aircraft MRO services. The paper presents the concept of an Industrial type
metaverse which has primarily four types of realities, including Augmented Reality (AR),
Mixed Reality (MR), Extended Reality (XR) and Virtual Reality (VR), thus aligning with the
study’s idea of metaverse adoption in aircraft MRO services. The study by (Dionisio et al.
2013) suggest the idea of creating an integrated network of virtual worlds called the metaverse
by going into the historicity of the development of virtual worlds and its current state and
challenges. The study by (Siyaev et al. 2021) presents a metaverse system that is used to train
students for aircraft maintenance by presenting a 3D or digital twin model of a Boeing 737
aircraft using mixed reality (MR). The study by (Lee et al. 2022) develops a virtual reality
system for aircraft maintenance to examine the effectiveness and knowledge acquisition of the
model by the subjects. (Kye et al. 2021) presents the possibility of metaverse and virtual reality
being used in the field of education, thus helping to gather information on whether metaverse
can be used for training purposes of students in numerous fields. The study by (Pradhan et al.
n.d.) presents a comprehensive review of using augmented reality (AR) in the field of aerospace
engineering to quickly identify potential problems in aircraft maintenance and quick
corrections of the errors by the relevant engineers by creating a 3D print of an aircraft involved.

10
 Theme References Inference Research Gap

(Abdulrahman et al., 2023; These research studies

Al-Ghaili et al., 2022; present a comprehensive These studies, while
Dwivedi et al., 2022; review of Metaverse explaining about the
Introduction to Hollensen et al., 2023; technology by firstly metaverse, do not
Metaverse Jagatheesaperumal et al., defining it, explaining delve into the
2023; Mosco, 2023; Park & about its potential implementation
Kim, 2022; Y. Wang et al., application areas and its challenges.
2022) challenges.

These papers explain the

potential barriers that can
hinder the adoption of These studies present
metaverse. (Hoi & Kong, a comprehensive
(Abdulrahman et al., 2023;
2023) has explained about overview of the
Dionisio et al., 2013; Hoi
Barriers to the barriers to adoption of potential barriers to
& Kong, 2023; Park &
Metaverse metaverse in Hong Kong’s adoption of metaverse,
Kim, 2022; Pradhan et al.,
construction industry. but are primarily
n.d.)
Similarly, (Abdulrahman limited to education
et al., 2023) explains about and health sectors.
the challenges in AI &
Blockchain technology.

These research papers

present an overview of the These studies do not
(Gómez-Cambronero et al.,
current studies related to delve deep into the
Metaverse in 2023; Lee et al., 2022;
Metaverse adoption in challenges of
Aviation Rupasinghe & Kurz, 2011;
aircraft maintenance, metaverse adoption in
Siyaev & Jo, 2021a, 2021b)
primarily for education the aviation industry.
purposes.

Table 1: Literature Review Summary

11
2.2) Literature Review Table

Table 2: Literature Review

S. No Paper Methodology Inferences Research Gap(s)

Does not delve into

This study provides a technological risks and
comprehensive overview the financial implication
1) Abdulrahman Review Paper of the potential aspect and demonstrates
et al., 2023 applications and lack of current
challenges of AI technological readiness
level.

This study explores the The research and

barriers to data are limited to
2) Hoi & Kong, Exploratory implementation of Hong Kong and
2023 Factor Analysis Metaverse in the ignores the aspect of
construction industry of other countries
Hong Kong

Preferred This study reviews the

reporting items concepts and features of The research study
Njoku et al., for systematic Metaverse with respect to ignores the aspect of
3)
2023 reviews and meta- Data-driven Intelligent cost implication of
analyses Transportation Systems metaverse.
(PRISMA) (DDITS)

To find the current status

Dionisio et and needed This research study does
4) Review Paper
al., 2013 developments to achieve not consider the cost
a functional Metaverse implications factor

12
 This study developed a
virtual reality training
Practical model and compared two
Ziakkas et al., implementation of groups of students in The study ignoresthe
5) 2023 Virtual Reality which one used the VR aspect of datasecurity
technology method, and another and interoperability
simulations group performed the issues of metaverse.
required task through
traditional form of
learning

The NSSE model does

This study develops a not specify aircraft parts
6) Siyaev & Jo, Neuro Symbolic metaverse model for by features such as name
2021 Speech Executor B737 maintenance and description
training

This study does a This review has

comprehensive review of considered a specific
Al-Ghaili et al., the chronological history of range of period
7) Review Paper
2022 Metaverse and its during which the
applications in the modern reviewed articles have
world been published

This study provides the

entire process of designing
Gómez- and developingof a virtual
Octalysis This research paper has a
8) Cambronero et environment system
framework small sample size
al., 2023 involving tasks required in
aircraft maintenance
process

This study demonstrates

how semantic awareness
Jagatheesaperu can be an effective No significant
9) Review Paper
mal et al., 2023 alternative for utilising research gap
digital twins in Metaverse
applications.

13
 This study covers only
Aircraft Maintenance
This study presents a
Technology and does
Rupasinghe & Virtual Reality learning
10) Pilot Study Tests not consider other
Kurz, 2011 system regarding
educational areas
Aircraft Maintenance

This study aims to

provide a clear definition This study does not
of the metaverse, discuss the related
Hwang &
11) Review Paper explores its potential concepts of Metaverse
Chien, 2022
applications and research such as XR, AR, etc.
issues of the metaverse in
educational settings

This study aims to

provide a comprehensive The study has not included
Wang et al., review of the the cost implications and
12) Review Paper
2023 country-wise and infrastructure needs for use
organization- wise of metaverse
Metaverse policies

This paper seeks to givea

precise explanation of the The study does not discuss
Hollensen et al., Case Study Metaverse and investigates the related concepts of
13)
2023 Analysis its components and Metaverse such as XR,
operation through a case AR, etc.
study

14
 This study evaluates the
Lacks study on the
14) Jaipong et al., Narrative literature on Metaverse
quantitative data
2023 Synthesis and Cybersecurity in the
pertaining to the topic
Digital Era

This study analyses the

15) Park & Kim, Review Paper limitations and directions No significant
2022 to implement the research gap
immersive Metaverse

The study found that

personalized learning,
contextualized teaching,
perceived usefulness, Lack of research time
G. Wang & PPM & TAM perceived ease of use, and resources due to
16) social needs, and social
Shin, 2022 Model COVID-19 pandemic
impact play significant restrictions
positive roles in the
willingness to use the
metaverse education
platform.

This paper suggests an

approach to compensate
for the drawbacks of The number of
the current distant participants were
Lee et al., Experimental models of practical
17) relatively small, and the
2022 analysis education by study was confined to
integrating virtual aircraft simulation only
reality and metaverse
techniquesinto the
classroom.

15
 To understand the
Article & Number of research
18) Review Paper concept of Metaverse in
Narin, n.d. papers reviewed is less
a deeper manner

This study has

reviewed the literature
This study aims to find mostly from usage of
how blockchain blockchain in
19) Saberi et al., Review Paper technology can aid in cryptocurrency
2019 supply chain environment and has
sustainability ignored the
applications of
blockchain in other
environments

This study aims to define

20) Kye et al., Review Paper the four types of No significant
2021 metaverse and their research gap
educational applications

This research
This study explains why
considers only the
business experts consider
technological
Gauttier why it is important to be
21) Review Paper factors, ignoring
et al., a first mover in the
other crucial
2022 metaverse technology or
factors in adoption
why it is important to
of Metaverse
wait
technology

This study covers the The study ignores the

22) Pradhan Review Paper aspects and potentials of potential challenges of
et al.,n.d. AR technology in the adopting AR technology
aerospace sector

16
 This study presents an
Dwivedi et al., Multi-perspective overview of Metaverse
23) No significant gap
2022 research and its transformational
impact

This study identifies and

Ratanavaraha
Fuzzy Set evaluates cybersecurity No significant
24) & Srisa-An,
Theory factors in metaverse research gap
2023
adoption in Thailand

This study does not delve

This study presents a
Chen & Cheng, deeply into the economic
25) 2022
Review Paper preliminary study on the
considerations of
metaverse economy
metaverse.

17
2.3) Research Gap
Research Gap refers to a question or a problem that has not been answered by existing research
studies. The research gap in this study includes the following:

➢ The primary research gap in this study was the lack of literature regarding metaverse
usage in aircraft maintenance. The literature review on metaverse that this study has
undertaken primarily constitutes metaverse applications in education and training.

18
 The 5 Main Factors along with their respective sub-factors are as follows:

S. No. Main Factors Sub-Factors Reference

S1) Metaverse Knowledge Gap (Hoi & Kong, 2023)

S2) Infrastructure limitations (Hoi & Kong, 2023)

C1 Technical
1 S3) Software Integration (Dionisio et al., 2013)
Implementation
S4) Scalability (H. Wang et al., 2023)

S5) Compatibility (H. Wang et al., 2023)

S6) User Feedback (Hoi & Kong, 2023)

C2 User Adoption &
2 S7) Training Program Development (Hoi & Kong, 2023)
Training
S8) Resistance to Change (Hoi & Kong, 2023)

S9) Data Encryption (Abdulrahman et al., 2023)

S10) Security Access Control (Abdulrahman et al., 2023)

3 C3 Data Security
S11) Compliance Monitoring (Hoi & Kong, 2023)

S12) Incident Response (Y. Wang et al., 2022)

S13) Vendor Collaboration (POC) (Expert Opinion)

S14) Data Testing and Validation (Siyaev & Jo, 2021b)

4 C4 System Integration
S15) Quality Control (Siyaev & Jo, 2021b)

S16) Data Integration (Siyaev & Jo, 2021b)

S17) Budgeting (Hoi & Kong, 2023)

S18) Cost-Benefit Analysis (Abdulrahman et al., 2023)

5 C5 Cost Implications
S19) Financial Impact (Hoi & Kong, 2023)

S20) Revenue Generation (Chen & Cheng, 2022)

19
 Table 3: Main Factors and Sub-Factors

C# Sub-Factors (S#) Description

Lack of knowledge about Metaverse, its software

S1) Metaverse Knowledge Gap
and its functioning.

Lack of software and hardware infrastructure for

S2) Infrastructure limitations
usage of Metaverse.

The process of combining different types of

C1 S3) Software Integration
software programs into one system.

The ability of a system to perform well when the

S4) Scalability
workload increases.

The ability of different software systems to work

S5) Software Compatibility
together without errors or losing data.

The feedback or response of the staff who will use

S6) User Feedback
the Metaverse software.

The training program to be developed for the

C2 S7) Training Program Development
metaverse users for initial training purpose.

Lack of want of change in staff from conventional

S8) Resistance to Change
maintenance ways.

The process of transforming data from a readable

S9) Data Encryption
format into an encoded, unreadable format.

A process to determine who can access the data in

S10) Security Access Control
the metaverse system.

C3 Complying with the legal rules & regulations of

S11) Compliance Monitoring
cybersecurity.

Ability of the system to correct any minor

S12) Incident Response malfunctions or data breach in the metaverse
system.

20
 A feasibility report of the Metaverse system the
S13) Vendor Collaboration (POC) vendor will present for the user company to
analyze & purchase the Metaverse system.

Testing the data to be entered into the metaverse

S14) Data Testing and Validation
C4 system and check its accuracy.

To check if the metaverse system meets the

S15) Quality Control
organizational goals w.r.t aircraft maintenance.

The process to consolidate the data from multiple

S16) Data Integration
sources into a single dataset.

The process of allocating capital for a project

S17) Budgeting
aligned with the firm’s goals & objectives.

A method that weighs the advantages and

S18) Cost-Benefit Analysis disadvantages of a choice to ascertain whether it
makes sense from a business point of view.
C5
The impact caused to the firm due to money
S19) Financial Impact
invested in the metaverse project.

The ability of the maintenance firm to generate

S20) Revenue Generation and increase revenue by using the metaverse
system.

Table 4: Definition of Sub-Factors

21
 CHAPTER 3 – Research Methodology

As per Kothari, C. R. (2004), Research Methodology is a way to systematically solve the

research problem. It may be understood as a science of studying how research is done
scientifically.

Either a quantitative, qualitative, or hybrid approach is used to gather data. This chapter begins
with a comprehensive overview of the research framework. In the second part, this chapter
describes the objectives of the research. Following that, the method of data analysis – Fuzzy
Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) is discussed. Lastly, the study's main technique of
gathering data - questionnaires - is discussed.

An extensive review of the literature was conducted to preliminary to identify in total of 5

barrier factors having 19 sub-factors (Abdulrahman et al., 2023; Dionisio et al., 2013) that may
impact Metaverse implementation in the aircraft MRO industry.

Thereafter, a quantitative research method using a questionnaire survey was conducted among
industrial stakeholders to determine the ranking of barrier factors that significantly impact
Metaverse adoption in the aircraft maintenance sector.

Thirdly, a thorough data analysis was carried out using the Fuzzy AHP model to rank the
barriers according to their importance as per the responses gathered from the questionnaire.

22
3.1) Research Framework
This part gives an overall research framework starting from the identification of the barriers to
implementation of metaverse in aircraft MRO services, following the overview of the data
collection method, which is then followed by the data analysis method which has been done
with the help of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and finally ending with discussions on the
data findings.

Research Aims
- To identify the barriers to the adoption of Metaverse in MRO
- Ranking the barriers through Fuzzy AHP analysis.

Stage 1: Identification of Barriers Factors

- Identify 5 Main Barrier Factors and 19 Sub-Factors through

Literature Review

Stage 2: Quantitative Data Collection

- Through AHP Questionnaire Survey on MS Excel

Stage 3: Data Analysis

- Through Fuzzy AHP analysis on MS Excel

- Consistency check on GNU Octave software

Stage 4: Data Findings & Discussions

Stage 5: Recommendations for Future Study

Figure 1: Flowchart of Dissertation Report (Source: Author’s own creation)

23
3.2) Research Objective
➢ To rank the barriers to the adoption of Metaverse in aircraft MRO services through Fuzzy
AHP analysis.

3.3) Model used

The model used in this research study is the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) model
with sensitivity analysis.

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a widely acclaimed decision-making and

problem-solving technique that has gained prominence in various fields, ranging from business
and engineering to healthcare and environmental management. Developed by Thomas L. Saaty
in the late 1970s, (Saaty, 1987) AHP provides a structured and systematic approach to complex
decision-making, enabling individuals and organizations to evaluate and prioritize alternatives,
set objectives, and make informed choices.

AHP is a multi-criteria decision-making method that is particularly useful when faced with a
diverse set of factors or criteria that need to be considered in making a decision. AHP is based
on the principle of breaking down complex decisions into a hierarchy of criteria and
alternatives, making it easier to understand and compare the various factors at play.

The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) is an advanced analytical method derived
from the traditional AHP method. As per (Özdağoğlu & Özdağoğlu, n.d), conventional AHP
methods can lead to fuzziness and vagueness that can further lead to imprecise judgements by
decision makers. Several authors such as (Laarhoven and Pedrycz, 1983; Lootsma, 1997;
Ribeiro, 1996) have provided evidence that Fuzzy AHP methods reflect a more sophisticated
description of multi-criteria decision making.

Key components of the AHP model include:

1) Hierarchy: To illustrate the decision problem, AHP first creates a hierarchical framework.
This structure consists of an objective or goal at the top, a set of criteria that help achieve the
target, and the alternatives that are being considered below the criteria. Using a hierarchy
facilitates the process of organising and visualising decision-making.

2) Pairwise Comparisons: AHP uses pairwise comparisons to ascertain whether criteria and
alternatives are preferred or of varying relative relevance. Stakeholders or decision-makers
rate each component in the hierarchy according to how it stacks up against the others,
designating numerical values to reflect their assessments. The priority or weight of each
criterion and alternative is determined using these comparisons as the foundation.

24
3) Consistency Ratio: To make sure that the conclusions drawn from pairwise comparisons
are trustworthy and reasonable, AHP incorporates a consistency ratio. A method for
recognising and correcting judgmental inconsistencies is included in the AHP process, since
these can produce unreliable outcomes.

4) Weight Calculation: Using pairwise comparisons, AHP uses mathematical procedures,

such as the eigenvector approach, to determine the relative weights of criteria and
alternatives. The significance of every component in the decision hierarchy is measured in
this stage. Which factor is the most significant and which is the least important is determined
by computing the local and global weights for each sub-factor.

5) Aggregation of Preferences: After global weights are established, AHP combines

preferences for many options, enabling decision-makers to order or choose the most suitable
option.

As per (Vaidya & Kumar, 2006), the key steps of an AHP model are:

1) Determine the problem.

2) Broad the problem's objectives or consider all objectives and possible results.

3) Determine the criteria.

4) Use a hierarchical approach to organise the problem, incorporating the goal, prerequisites,
additional requirements, and possible solutions.

5) Modify every item on the numerical scale by comparing it with the others at the
appropriate level. It is assumed that the diagonal elements are equal or 1.

6. Determine the highest Eigenvalue, consistency ratio (CR), consistency index (CI), and
normalised values for each criterion or alternative.

7. The normalised values are used to make decisions if the highest CI, and CR are judged
acceptable; if not, the procedure is repeated until the values fall within the intended range.

For pairwise comparisons, the following equation (Putra et al., 2018) was used:

𝑎𝑖𝑗 = 𝑤𝑖/𝑤𝑗, 𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, 2, ..., 𝑛

For pairwise comparison, the following is the equation for triangular fuzzy numbers (Lee,
n.d.):

(111) (𝑙12 𝑚12 𝑛12 ). . . (𝑙1𝑛 𝑚1𝑛 𝑛1𝑛 )

à = (ã𝑖𝑗 )𝑛×𝑛 = ((𝑙21 𝑚21 𝑛21 ) (111). . . (𝑙2𝑛 𝑚2𝑛 𝑛2𝑛 ))
(𝑙𝑛1 𝑚𝑛1 𝑛𝑛1 ) (𝑙𝑛2 𝑚𝑛2 𝑛𝑛2 ). . . 1

25
The formula used to calculate the geometric mean (Ri) of the criteria is as follows:

Geometric mean (Ri) = 𝑀_𝑖 = ((𝛱 𝑎^𝑖𝑗)^(1/𝑛))

3.4) Data Collection

To obtain the required results as part of this study’s objective, a questionnaire was designed
for respondents to fill. The respondents include industry professionals in the aircraft
maintenance arena.

As per Hoi & Kong, 2023, a questionnaire can effectively provide information to determine
opinions and perceptions. The questionnaire was developed on Microsoft Excel and was
distributed to various respondents.

The questionnaire uses a 5-point likert scale with 1 being Equal Importance and 5 being
Absolute Importance.

The details of the likert scale are as follows:

Point Linguistic Variable

1 Equal Importance (EI)

2 Moderate Importance (MI)

3 Strong Importance (SI)

4 Very Strong Importance (VI)

5 Absolute Importance (AI)

Table 5: Likert Scale Description

26
Upon receiving the relevant responses, the weights of the factors were be calculated using the
consistency matrix created for each factor on Microsoft Excel.

Corresponding Triangular Fuzzy Numbers (TFNs):

Scale TFN Reciprocal TFN

1 1,1,1 1,1,1

2 2,3,4 1/4, 1/3, 1/2

3 4,5,6 1/6, 1/5, 1/4

4 6,7,8 1/8, 1/7, 1/6

5 9,9,9 1/9, 1/9, 1/9

Table 6: Triangular Fuzzy Numbers (TFNs) for a 5-point Likert scale (Soltani & Marandi, 2011)

A Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN)

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
L M U

Figure 2: A Triangular Fuzzy Numbers (TFN) Chart (Soltani & Marandi, 2011)

27
 CHAPTER 4 – Data Analysis

For data analysis, the data received from a total of eight responses was used. A total of eight
responses were received from respondents belonging to diverse backgrounds ranging from
academicians to working professionals. These expert-opinions from eight respondents, the
data was entered into Microsoft Excel for further analysis. A total of six comparison and
pairwise comparison matrices were created. A Fuzzy AHP analysis was performed on the
data.

S. No. Designation Qualification Years of Experience

1 Chief Executive Officer MBA 16

2 Chief Commercial & Strategy Officer PGDBM 33

3 Post Doctoral Fellow PhD 10

4 Associate Professor PhD 02

5 Professor PhD 16

6 Associate Professor MBA 10

7 UAV Engineer B. Tech 1

8 Associate Professor PhD 16

Table 7: Profile of the respondents

The consistency index and consistency ratio of the data was calculated using the GNU Octave
software. If the consistency ratio is less than 0.1, it infers that the data is consistent and
unbiased.

28
Figure 3: Flowchart of Fuzzy AHP analysis. (Source: Author’s own creation)

Create comparison
Gather responses from
matrices for factors & sub-
experts on Microsoft Excel
factors.

Is the data consistent? Check consistency of data

Yes No

Setup Triangular Fuzzy Recheck and recalculate

Numbers (TFNs) the values till it becomes
consistent.

Calculate average of fuzzy

Calculate the Geometric weight for each criterion &
Mean (Ri) & Fuzzy Weight normalize them to get
(Wi) global weight.

Rank the weights to choose

the most & least important
factor.

29
4.1) Data Findings
The data analysis starts with making comparison matrices for all factors and sub-factors. Crisp
numbers as received from the respondents undergo a comprehensive consistency analysis. The
consistency ratio and consistency index table for the main factors and sub-factors are
mentioned in the below table.

The following is the mathematical equation for consistency ratio (CR) and consistency
index (CI):

CR (Consistency Ratio) = (CI) / (RI)

CI (Consistency Index) = (λ - n) / (n - 1)

λ (Eigenvalue) = largest eigenvalue of the comparison matrix

MAIN FACTORS S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Consistency
0.082373 0.066060 0.036812 0.083314 0.083348 0.010184
Index (CI)

Consistency
0.092409 0.058982 0.063469 0.092571 0.092609 0.011315
Ratio (CR)

Table 8: Consistency Index (CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR) Table for all Main & Sub Factors

30
 After the data is validated, the crisp numbers were converted to triangular fuzzy numbers
(TFNs) for pairwise comparison matrix analysis for all the factors and sub-factors. These are
shown in detail below:

DATA ANALYSIS FOR MAIN FACTORS

C1 Technical C2 User Adoption & C3 Data Security C4 System C5 Cost
Implementation Training Integration Implications

C1 Technical 1.000 1.000 0.500 1.000 0.500

Implementation

C2 User Adoption & 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.333

Training

C3 Data Security 2.000 1.000 1.000 2.000 3.000

C4 System Integration 1.000 1.000 0.500 1.000 0.500

C5 Cost Implications 2.000 3.000 0.333 2.000 1.000

Step 1: Convert the TFNs into crisp numbers from the pairwise-comparison matrix.

Consistency Index = 0.082373

Consistency Ratio = 0.092409

Step 2: Calculating the CI & CR

C1 Technical C2 User Adoption C4 System

C3 Data Security C5 Cost Implications
Implementation & Training Integration

C1 Technical
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.333 0.250 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.333 0.250
Implementation

C2 User
Adoption & 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.250 0.200 0.167
Training

C3 Data
2.000 3.000 4.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 4.000 5.000 6.000
Security

C4 System
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.333 0.250 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.333 0.250
Integration

C5 Cost
2.000 3.000 4.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 0.250 0.200 0.167 2.000 3.000 4.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Implications

Step 1: Create a pairwise comparison matrix.

31
 Very Very
Absolute Strong Moderate MAIN Equal MAIN Moderate Strong Absolute
Strong Strong
Q# FACT FACTO
ORS RS
(9,9,9) (6,7,8) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (9,9,9)

1 C1 √ C2

2 C1 C3 √

3 C1 √ C4

4 C1 C5 √

5 C2 √ C3

6 C2 √ C4

7 C2 C5 √

8 √ C3 C4

9 √ C3 C5

10 C4 C5 √

Step 2: Create a comparison matrix.

CRITERIA Geometric Mean (Ri)

C1 0.757858 0.644394 0.574349

C2 0.757858 0.724780 0.698827

C3 1.741101 2.141127 2.491462

C4 0.757858 0.644394 0.574349

C5 1.319508 1.551846 1.741101

Total 5.334184 5.706541 6.080088

Reverse (power of -1) 0.187470 0.175238 0.164471

Increasing order 0.164471 0.175238 0.187470

Step 3: Finding the Geometric Mean of Fuzzy TFNs

32
 CRITERIA Fuzzy Weight (Wi)

C1 0.124646 0.112922 0.107673

C2 0.124646 0.127009 0.131009

C3 0.286361 0.375207 0.467074

C4 0.124646 0.112922 0.107673

C5 0.217021 0.271942 0.326404

Step 4: Calculating the Fuzzy weights.

ALTERNATIVE Average Weight (Mi) Normalized Weight (Ni) Rank

C1 0.115080 0.114426 5

C2 0.127555 0.126829 3

C3 0.376214 0.374075 1

C4 0.115080 0.114426 4

C5 0.271789 0.270244 2

TOTAL 1.005719

Step 5: Calculating the average weight (Mi) and normalized weight of the criterion (Ni)

33
 DATA ANALYSIS FOR SUB FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION
S1 Metaverse Knowledge S3 Software S5 Software
S2 Infrastructure Limitations S4 Scalability
Gap Integration Compatibility

S1 Metaverse Knowledge
1.000 0.500 0.500 1.000 4.000
Gap

S2 Infrastructure
2.000 1.000 3.000 1.000 4.000
Limitations

S3 Software Integration 2.000 0.333 1.000 1.000 2.000

S4 Scalability 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 4.000

S5 Software
0.250 0.250 0.500 0.250 1.000
Compatibility

Step 1: Convert the TFNs into crisp numbers from the pairwise-comparison matrix.

Consistency Index = 0.066060

Consistency Ratio = 0.058982

Step 2: Calculating the CI & CR

S1 Metaverse S2 Infrastructure S3 Software S5 Software

S4 Scalability
Knowledge Gap Limitations Integration Compatibility

S1 Metaverse
1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.333 0.250 0.500 0.333 0.250 1.000 1.000 1.000 6.000 7.000 8.000
Knowledge Gap

S2 Infrastructure
2.000 3.000 4.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 6.000 7.000 8.000
Limitations

S3 Software
2.000 3.000 4.000 0.250 0.200 0.167 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000
Integration

S4 Scalability 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 6.000 7.000 8.000

S5 Software
0.167 0.143 0.125 0.167 0.143 0.125 0.500 0.333 0.250 0.167 0.143 0.125 1.000 1.000 1.000
Compatibility

Step 3: Making the pairwise comparison matrix.

34
 Very Very
Absolute Strong Moderate SUB Equal SUB Moderate Strong Absolute
S. Strong Strong
FACTORS FACTORS
No.
OF C1 OF C1
(9,9,9) (6,7,8) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (9,9,9)

1 S1 S2 √

2 S1 S3 √

3 S1 √ S4

4 √ S1 S5

5 √ S2 S3

6 S2 √ S4

7 √ S2 S5

8 S3 √ S4

9 √ S3 S5

10 √ S4 S5

Step 4: Create a comparison matrix and entering data received from respondents.

ALTERNATIVE Geometric Mean (Ri)

S1 1.084472 0.950979 0.870551

S2 2.168944 2.536517 2.861938

S3 1.000000 1.124746 1.216729

S4 1.430969 1.475773 1.515717

S5 0.297100 0.249757 0.217638

TOTAL 5.981485 6.337773 6.682572

Reverse (power of -1) 0.167183 0.157784 0.149643

Increasing order 0.149643 0.157784 0.167183

Step 5: Finding the Geometric Mean of Fuzzy TFNs

35
 CRITERIA Fuzzy Weight (Wi)

S1 0.162284 0.150049 0.145541

S2 0.324567 0.400222 0.478467

S3 0.149643 0.177467 0.203416

S4 0.214135 0.232853 0.253402

S5 0.044459 0.039408 0.036385

Step 6: Calculating the Fuzzy weights.

ALTERNATIVE Average Weights (Mi) Normalized Weight (Ni) Rank

S1 0.152625 0.152002 4

S2 0.401086 0.399448 1

S3 0.176842 0.176120 3

S4 0.233463 0.232510 2

S5 0.040084 0.039920 5

TOTAL 1.004100

Step 7: Calculating the average weight (Mi), normalized weight of the criterion (Ni) & ranking.

36
 DATA ANALYSIS FOR SUB FACTOR 2 – USER ADOPTION & TRAINING
S8 Resistance to
S6 User Feedback S7 Training Program Development
Change

S6 User Feedback 1.000 0.333 3.000

S7 Training Program Development 3.000 1.000 4.000

S8 Resistance to Change 0.333 0.250 1.000

Step 1: Taking crisp numbers to calculate CI & CR

Consistency Index = 0.036812

Consistency Ratio = 0.063469

Step 2: Calculating the CI & CR

S6 User Feedback S7 Training Program Development S8 Resistance to Change

S6 User Feedback 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.250 0.200 0.167 4.000 5.000 6.000

S7 Training Program
4.000 5.000 6.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 6.000 7.000 8.000
Development

S8 Resistance to Change 0.250 0.200 0.167 0.167 0.143 0.125 1.000 1.000 1.000

Step 3: Making the pairwise comparison matrix.

Very Very
Absolute Strong Moderate SUB Equal SUB Moderate Strong Absolute
Strong Strong
Q# FACTORS FACTORS
OF C2 OF C2
(9,9,9) (6,7,8) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (9,9,9)

1 S6 S7 √

2 √ S6 S8

3 √ S7 S8

Step 4: Creating a comparison matrix.

37
 ALTERNATIVE Geometric Mean (Ri)

S6 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000

S7 2.884499 3.271066 3.634241

S8 0.346681 0.305711 0.275161

TOTAL 4.231180 4.576777 4.909402

Reverse (power of -1) 0.236341 0.218494 0.203691

Increasing order 0.203691 0.218494 0.236341

Step 5: Finding the Geometric Mean of Fuzzy TFNs

ALTERNATIVE Fuzzy Weight (Wi)

S6 0.203691 0.218494 0.236341

S7 0.587547 0.714708 0.858920

S8 0.070616 0.066796 0.065032

Step 6: Calculating the Fuzzy weights.

ALTERNATIVE Average Weights (Mi) Normalized Weight (Ni) Rank

S6 0.219509 0.217900 2

S7 0.720392 0.715113 1

S8 0.067481 0.066987 3

TOTAL 1.007381

Step 7: Calculating the average weight (Mi), normalized weight of the alternative (Ni).

38
 DATA ANALYSIS FOR SUB FACTOR 3 – DATA SECURITY
S11 Compliance S12 Incident
S9 Data Encryption S10 Security Access Control
Monitoring Response

S9 Data Encryption 1.000 0.250 0.250 0.250

S10 Security Access

4.000 1.000 1.000 4.000
Control

S11 Compliance
4.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Monitoring

S12 Incident Response 4.000 0.250 1.000 1.000

Step 1: Taking crisp numbers to calculate CI & CR

Consistency Index = 0.083314

Consistency Ratio = 0.092571

Step 2: Calculating the CI & CR

S10 Security Access S11 Compliance

S9 Data Encryption S12 Incident Response
Control Monitoring

S9 Data Encryption 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.167 0.143 0.125 0.167 0.143 0.125 0.167 0.143 0.125

S10 Security Access

6.000 7.000 8.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 6.000 7.000 8.000
Control

S11 Compliance
6.000 7.000 8.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Monitoring

S12 Incident
6.000 7.000 8.000 0.167 0.143 0.125 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Response

Step 3: Making the pairwise comparison matrix.

39
 Very Very
Absolute Strong Moderate SUB Equal SUB Moderate Strong Absolute
Q Strong Strong
FACTOR FACTOR
#
S OF C3 S OF C3
(9,9,9) (6,7,8) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (9,9,9)

1 S9 S10 √

2 S9 S11 √

3 S9 S12 √

4 S10 √ S11

5 √ S10 S12

6 S11 √ S12

Step 4: Creating the comparison matrix.

ALTERNATIVE Geometric Mean (Ri)

S9 0.260847 0.232368 0.210224

S10 2.449490 2.645751 2.828427

S11 1.565085 1.626577 1.681793

S12 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000

TOTAL 5.275422 5.504696 5.720444

Reverse (power of -1) 0.189558 0.181663 0.174812

Increasing order 0.174812 0.181663 0.189558

Step 5: Finding the Geometric Mean of Fuzzy TFNs

ALTERNATIVE Fuzzy Weight (Wi)

S9 0.045599 0.042213 0.039850

S10 0.428200 0.480635 0.536151

S11 0.273596 0.295489 0.318797

S12 0.174812 0.181663 0.189558

Step 6: Calculating the Fuzzy weights.

40
ALTERNATIVE Average Weight (Mi) Normalized Weight (Ni) Rank

S9 0.042554 0.042461 4

S10 0.481662 0.480611 1

S11 0.295961 0.295315 2

S12 0.182011 0.181614 3

TOTAL 1.002188

Step 7: Calculating the average weight (Mi), normalized weight of the criterion (Ni).

41
 DATA ANALYSIS FOR SUB FACTOR 4 – SYSTEM INTEGRATION
S13 Vendor S14 Data Testing & S15 Quality
S16 Data Integration
Collaboration (POC) Validation Control

S13 Vendor Collaboration

1.000 1.000 0.500 0.500
(POC)

S14 Data Testing & Validation 1.000 1.000 2.000 2.000

S15 Quality Control 2.000 0.500 1.000 1.000

S16 Data Integration 2.000 0.500 1.000 1.000

Step 1: Taking crisp numbers to calculate CI & CR

Consistency Index = 0.083348

Consistency Ratio = 0.092609

Step 2: Calculating the CI & CR

S13 Vendor S14 Data Testing &

S15 Quality Control S16 Data Integration
Collaboration (POC) Validation

S13 Vendor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.333 0.250 0.500 0.333 0.250
Collaboration (POC)

S14 Data Testing & 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 2.000 3.000 4.000
Validation

S15 Quality Control 2.000 3.000 4.000 0.500 0.333 0.250 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

S16 Data Integration 2.000 3.000 4.000 0.500 0.333 0.250 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Step 3: Making the pairwise comparison matrix.

42
 Very Very
Absolute Strong Moderate SUB Equal SUB Moderate Strong Absolute
Q Strong Strong
FACTOR FACTOR
#
S OF C4 S OF C4
(9,9,9) (6,7,8) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (9,9,9)

1 S13 √ S14

2 S13 S15 √

3 S13 S16 √

4 √ S14 S15

5 √ S14 S16

6 S15 √ S16

Step 4: Creating the comparison matrix.

ALTERNATIVE Geometric Mean (Ri)

S13 0.707107 0.577350 0.500000

S14 1.414214 1.732051 2.000000

S15 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000

S16 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000

TOTAL 4.121320 4.309401 4.500000

Reverse (power of -1) 0.242641 0.232051 0.222222

Increasing order 0.222222 0.232051 0.242641

Step 5: Finding the Geometric Mean of Fuzzy TFNs

ALTERNATIVE Fuzzy Weight (Wi)

S13 0.157135 0.133975 0.121321

S14 0.314269 0.401924 0.485282

S15 0.222222 0.232051 0.242641

S16 0.222222 0.232051 0.242641

Step 6: Calculating the fuzzy weights.

43
 ALTERNATIVE Average Weight (Mi) Normalized Weight (Ni) Rank

S13 0.137477 0.137123 4

S14 0.400492 0.399462 1

S15 0.232305 0.231707 2

S16 0.232305 0.231707 3

TOTAL 1.002578

Step 7: Calculating the average weight (Mi), normalized weight of the criterion (Ni) & ranking.

44
 DATA ANALYSIS FOR SUB FACTOR 5 – COST IMPLICATIONS
S17 Budgeting S18 Cost Benefit Analysis S19 Financial Impact S20 Revenue Generation

S17 Budgeting 1.000 0.250 0.333 1.000

S18 Cost Benefit 4.000 1.000 1.000 3.000

Analysis

S19 Financial Impact 3.000 1.000 1.000 2.000

S20 Revenue Generation 1.000 0.333 0.500 1.000

Step 1: Taking crisp numbers to calculate CI & CR

Consistency Index = 0.010184

Consistency Ratio = 0.011315

Step 2: Calculating the CI & CR

S17 Budgeting S18 Cost Benefit Analysis S19 Financial Impact S20 Revenue Generation

S17 Budgeting 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.167 0.143 0.125 0.250 0.200 0.167 1.000 1.000 1.000

S18 Cost Benefit Analysis 6.000 7.000 8.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 4.000 5.000 6.000

S19 Financial Impact 4.000 5.000 6.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000

S20 Revenue Generation 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.250 0.200 0.167 0.500 0.333 0.250 1.000 1.000 1.000

Step 3: Making the pairwise comparison matrix.

Very SUB Very

Absolute Strong Moderate Equal SUB Moderate Strong Absolute
Strong FACTO Strong
Q# FACTOR
RS OF
S OF C5
(9,9,9) (6,7,8) (4,5,6) (2,3,4) C5 (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (4,5,6) (6,7,8) (9,9,9)

1 S17 S18 √

2 S17 S19 √

3 S17 √ S20

4 S18 √ S19

5 √ S18 S20

6 √ S19 S20

Step 4: Creating the comparison matrix.

45
 ALTERNATIVE Geometric Mean (Ri)

S17 0.451801 0.411134 0.379918

S18 2.213364 2.432299 2.632148

S19 1.681793 1.967990 2.213364

S20 0.594604 0.508133 0.451801

TOTAL 4.941561 5.319555 5.677231

Reverse (power of -1) 0.202365 0.187986 0.176142

Increasing order 0.176142 0.187986 0.202365

Step 5: Finding the Geometric Mean of Fuzzy TFNs

ALTERNATIVE Fuzzy Weight (Wi)

S17 0.079581 0.077287 0.076882

S18 0.389866 0.457238 0.532655

S19 0.296234 0.369955 0.447907

S20 0.104735 0.095522 0.091429

Step 6: Calculating the Fuzzy weights.

ALTERNATIVE Average Weight (Mi) Normalized Weight (Ni) Rank

S17 0.077917 0.077419 4

S18 0.459920 0.456981 1

S19 0.371365 0.368993 2

S20 0.097228 0.096607 3

TOTAL 1.006430

Step 7: Calculating the average weight (Mi), normalized weight of the criterion (Ni) & ranking.

46
After calculating the geometric mean (RI), the fuzzy weight (Wi) was calculated for each
factor. Subsequently, the normalized weight (Ni) and Global Weight (GW) were calculated
on excel for final ranking for all the sub-factors. These weights are shown in the table below.

Local Weight Global Weight

Main Factor Ni Weight Sub-Factor Rank
(Ni) (GW)

Metaverse
Knowledge 0.152002 0.017393 16
Gap

Infrastructure
0.399448 0.045707 8
Limitations
Technical
0.114426
Implementation Software
0.176120 0.020153 15
Integration

Scalability 0.232510 0.026605 10

Software
0.039920 0.004568 20
Compatibility

User
0.217900 0.027636 9
Feedback

Training
User Adoption
0.126829 Program 0.715113 0.090697 5
& Training
Development

Resistance to
0.066987 0.008496 19
Change

Data
0.042461 0.015884 17
Encryption

Security
Access 0.480611 0.179785 1
Data Security 0.374075 Control

Compliance
0.295315 0.110470 3
Monitoring

Incident
0.181614 0.067937 6
Response

47
 Vendor
Collaboration 0.137123 0.015690 18
(POC)

Data Testing
System and 0.399462 0.045709 7
0.114426 Validation
Integration
Quality
0.231707 0.026513 11
Control

Data
0.231707 0.026513 12
Integration

Budgeting 0.077419 0.020922 14

Cost-Benefit
0.456981 0.123496 2
Analysis
Cost
0.270244 Financial
Implications 0.368993 0.099718 4
Impact

Revenue
0.096607 0.026107 13
Generation

Table 9: Calculation of Global Weights and Final Ranking of Factors

48
4.2) Discussions
The Fuzzy AHP data analysis conducted above revealed several interesting and important
points with respect to the barrier factors in adoption of metaverse in MRO services.

➢ The data analysis revealed that the most important main barrier factor in the adoption of
metaverse is Data Security, whereas the least important barrier factor is Technical
Implementation. This infers that data security holds a lot of significance in the context of
aircraft maintenance.

➢ When the sub-factors of each main barrier factor were analysed with the first being the
barrier factors of Technical Implementation, the data analysis revealed that the most
important factor is Infrastructure limitations, thereby emphasizing on the critical need to
have a robust infrastructure system in place before the metaverse software is put into use.

➢ Moving onto the sub-factors of User Adoption & Training, the analysis revealed that the
most important factor is Training Program Development. The weight difference between
the most important factor and the second-most important factor was a whopping 0.5
points. This infers the critical need for companies adopting this technology to create a
thorough and comprehensive training module for its employees to ensure that the
operations are carried out efficiently and effectively.

➢ Moving onto the sub-factors of the third main barrier factor, data security, the data
analysis revealed that the most important barrier factor is Security Access Control. A
robust security system is critical to ensure no data breaches occur. Aircraft maintenance
data can be sensitive and if proper precautions are not put in place, the data can go into
wrong hands which can pose significant threats to safe and secure air travel.

➢ Moving onto the sub-factors of the fourth main barrier factor of system integration, the
data analysis revealed that the most critical factor is Data Testing and Validation. This
infers that the result data derived from the metaverse software should be accurate and
precise. Discrepancies in the maintenance data can lead to inaccurate results thus
hindering the smooth operation of maintenance activities.

➢ Furthermore, the data analysis of the sub-factors of the last main barrier factor Cost
Implications revealed that the most important factor to consider is Cost-Benefit Analysis.
Since the metaverse is a capital-intensive project in the current state, it is critical for
companies to perform a thorough cost-benefit analysis to ensure no capital loss behind
projects that may not be feasible for them.

➢ Lastly in the overall process of final rankings of all the sub-factors through calculation of
global weights revealed the most important barrier factor in this study is Security Access
Control, whereas the least important factor is Software Compatibility.

49
 CHAPTER 5 – Conclusion and Limitation of the Study

5.1) Conclusion
This dissertation report presents a comprehensive analysis of the potential barrier factors that
could hinder the adoption of metaverse in aircraft MRO services. This study firstly delves into
the potential barrier factors that have been identified from previously conducted studies and
then categorizes them into 5 Main Factors and 19 Sub Factors. Interestingly, during this
research, another factor was identified and inducted into the study based on expert opinion,
thus taking total number of sub-factors to 20. Many respondents agreed that before a
maintenance company chooses a suitable Metaverse software for their needs, it is important for
them a proof-of-concept (POC) is presented to them by the vendors. Collaboration of the
vendors in this particular case becomes significant as it is crucial for them to showcase the
software technology they possess and how they are unique and different from other metaverse
software.

After gathering these factors, expert opinions were considered through a AHP questionnaire
on Microsoft Excel. A thorough analysis of the data was performed to make the data consistent
before it is further analysed to rank the barriers. The analysis involved creation of pairwise
comparison matrices in which triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) were put based on the
responses received from respondents.

Upon doing the FAHP analysis of the data, it was found that most respondents regarded Data
Security as the most important main factor. Data security is one of the most important
factors when it comes to technologies related to Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and
Metaverse. Aviation maintenance is a critical industry where sensitive information related to
all the aircraft are possessed by authorized persons. To prevent potential breaches, address
random system malfunctions and to prevent data loss, a significant data security infrastructure
needs to be put in place before the entire system starts functioning. Another very significant
factor Cost Implications came a close second to Data Security. It is significant to note that
metaverse system is a capital-intensive system where a lot of capital is needed to acquire all
the systems needed in the metaverse technology. Establishing hardware, purchasing of
metaverse equipment, training cost of staff are all very capital-intensive projects. Therefore,
cost implications can be considered an important barrier factor to the adoption of metaverse in
aircraft MRO industry. Adoption of metaverse in aircraft maintenance would mean additional
expenses burden on aviation maintenance companies as the aviation industry is considered a
very capital-intensive industry. In the case of sub-factors of Technical Implementation, most
respondents emphasized that the biggest challenge to adoption of metaverse in the MRO
industry is lack of infrastructure or “Infrastructure limitations”. Any company adopting this
technology would first need proper infrastructure that includes software systems, hardware
(such as VR glasses). It is critical that before adopting a new technology such as metaverse,
the company acquires or builds the relevant infrastructure needed for the proper functioning of
the metaverse system.

50
In the case of sub-factors of User Adoption & Training, respondents said the most important
factor is “Training Program Development”. The aviation industry has a safety-centric
approach which indicates that in this context, it is mandatory for all maintenance staff to be
properly trained and aware of the technology that they will be using for maintenance of the
aircraft. It is significantly important for an aircraft maintenance firm to design a comprehensive
training module for its employees to ensure that they follow the required procedures and
standards while operating the metaverse software. For the sub-factors of Data Security,
respondents stated that “Security Access Control” is the most important criterion. It is
important to note that aircraft maintenance is a critical component in daily functioning of the
aviation industry. As mentioned above, since the aviation industry follows a safety-first policy,
it becomes important that critical maintenance errors found during aircraft inspection are
accessed by the authorized person only. A good metaverse software with a good firewall system
will help keep the data safe and secure, free from any kind of potential breaches. The proposed
metaverse system can have biometric enabled access so that only those who are authorized to
access sensitive and critical information related to any aircraft can access it. Moving onto
another important main factor, System Integration, analysis of the responses collected from
the respondents showed that the sub-factor “Data Testing and Validation” is the most
critical sub-factor. Data testing and Validation refers to the procedure where a maintenance
company would test and validate the results of the metaverse system. The primary aim of
adoption of metaverse in MRO industry is to reduce aircraft-on-ground (AOG) times, increase
the efficiency and effectivity of the maintenance that is carried out by the authorized staff to
ensure safe air transport. Therefore, it becomes important that the data that is derived from the
metaverse system is accurate and valid as otherwise it could lead to significant problems such
as wrong interpretation of data leading to loopholes in maintenance, thus posing a threat to
every stakeholder involved with the aircraft, increased AOG times thus leading to loss of
revenue for both the aircraft operator and the maintenance company. To ensure that standards
are followed during the entire aircraft maintenance process, the relevant companies should
frame relevant policies and the country’s regulatory authorities should frame relevant laws and
regulations for efficient operation and usage of Metaverse in the aircraft MRO industry.

The next critical factor is Cost Implications where respondents inferred that the most critical
factor is “Cost-benefit analysis”. It is very important for a company to perform a cost-benefit
analysis before the company indulges in adoption of such a capitally expensive product. This
is primarily because the company needs to take sound decisions when it is looks for investing
in capital-heavy projects. As the Metaverse technology gathers more steam and normalizes
itself in the future, more companies would be able to invest in this technology as the required
amount of money to be invested would likely decrease.

51
5.2) Limitations of the study
This study provides a comprehensive overview of the potential barriers that may hinder the
adoption of metaverse in aircraft MRO services. However, there are a few notable limitations
of the study that are important to consider.

➢ This study considers the current state of metaverse technology available in the outside
world. The opinions of respondents taken in this study reflect the personal opinions of the
respondents depending on their experience, awareness and understanding of metaverse.
Future studies should focus on recurrent studies to evaluate the changing perceptions of
experts with respect to metaverse.

➢ The sample size of this study is relatively small and studies with greater sample sizes may
exhibit different conclusions.

52
 APPENDICES - THE QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX A

MAIN FACTORS
Very Very
Criterion A Absolute Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Absolute Criterion B
Strong Strong

C2 User
C1 Technical
Adoption &
Implementation
Training

C1 Technical C3 Data
Implementation Security

C1 Technical C4 System
Implementation Integration

C1 Technical C5 Cost
Implementation Implications

C2 User
C3 Data
Adoption &
Security
Training

C2 User
C4 System
Adoption &
Integration
Training

C2 User
C5 Cost
Adoption &
Implications
Training

C4 System
C3 Data Security
Integration

C5 Cost
C3 Data Security
Implications

C4 System C5 Cost
Integration Implications

Table 1: Comparing the Main Factors

53
 APPENDIX B
MAIN FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION: SUB-FACTORS

Very Very
Criterion A Absolute Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Absolute Criterion B
Strong Strong

S1 Metaverse S2
Knowledge Infrastructure
Gap Limitations

S1 Metaverse
S3 Software
Knowledge
Integration
Gap

S1 Metaverse
Knowledge S4 Scalability
Gap

S1 Metaverse
S5 Software
Knowledge
Compatibility
Gap

S2
S3 Software
Infrastructure
Integration
Limitations

S2
Infrastructure S4 Scalability
Limitations

S2
S5 Software
Infrastructure
Compatibility
Limitations

S3 Software
S4 Scalability
Integration

S3 Software S5 Software
Integration Compatibility

S5 Software
S4 Scalability
Compatibility

Table 2: Comparing the Sub Factors of Technical Implementation

54
 APPENDIX C

MAIN FACTOR 2 – USER ADOPTION & TRAINING: SUB-FACTORS

Very Very
Criterion A Absolute Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Absolute Criterion B
Strong Strong

S7 Training
S6 User
Program
Feedback
Development

S8
S6 User
Resistance to
Feedback
Change

S7 Training S8
Program Resistance to
Development Change

Table 3: Comparing the Sub Factors of User Adoption and Training

55
 APPENDIX D

MAIN FACTOR 3 – DATA SECURITY: SUB-FACTORS

Very Very
Criterion A Absolute Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Absolute Criterion B
Strong Strong

S10
S9 Data Security
Encryption Access
Control

S11
S9 Data
Compliance
Encryption
Monitoring

S12
S9 Data
Incident
Encryption
Response

S10
S11
Security
Compliance
Access
Monitoring
Control

S10
S12
Security
Incident
Access
Response
Control

S11 S12
Compliance Incident
Monitoring Response

Table 4: Comparing the Sub Factors of Data Security

56
 APPENDIX E

MAIN FACTOR 4 – SYSTEM INTEGRATION: SUB-FACTORS

Very Very Criterion

Criterion A Absolute Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Absolute
Strong Strong B

S13 Vendor S14 Data

Collaboration Testing &
(POC) Validation

S13 Vendor S15

Collaboration Quality
(POC) Control

S13 Vendor
S16 Data
Collaboration
Integration
(POC)

S14 Data S15

Testing & Quality
Validation Control

S14 Data
S16 Data
Testing &
Integration
Validation

S15 Quality S16 Data

Control Integration

Table 5: Comparing the Sub Factors of Interoperability

57
 APPENDIX F

MAIN FACTOR 5 – COST IMPLICATIONS: SUB-FACTORS

Criterion Very Very

Absolute Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong Absolute Criterion B
A Strong Strong

S18 Cost-
S17
Benefit
Budgeting
Analysis

S19
S17
Financial
Budgeting
Impact

S20
S17
Revenue
Budgeting
Generation

S18 Cost- S19

Benefit Financial
Analysis Impact

S18 Cost- S20

Benefit Revenue
Analysis Generation

S19 S20
Financial Revenue
Impact Generation

Table 6: Comparing the Sub Factors of Cost Implications

58
APPENDIX G

Figure: Code used in GNU Octave software to calculate CI & CR

59
 REFERENCES
1) Njoku, J. N., Nwakanma, C. I., Amaizu, G. C., & Kim, D. S. (2023). Prospects and
challenges of Metaverse application in data‐driven intelligent transportation systems. IET
Intelligent Transport Systems, 17(1), 1-21.

2) Al-Ghaili, A. M., Kasim, H., Al-Hada, N. M., Hassan, Z., Othman, M., Hussain, T. J., ...
& Shayea, I. (2022). A review of metaverse’s definitions, architecture, applications,
challenges, issues, solutions, and future trends. IEEE Access.

3) Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology. new Age.

4) Hollensen, S., Kotler, P., & Opresnik, M. O. (2022). Metaverse–the new marketing
universe. Journal of Business Strategy, (ahead-of-print).

5) Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used.

Mathematical modelling, 9(3-5), 161-176.

6) Yeung, H. Y. (2023). Barriers factors of metaverse adoption in construction industry in

Hong Kong.

7) Thomas, S. J. (2004). Using web and paper questionnaires for data-based decision
making: From design to interpretation of the results. Corwin Press.

8) Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of

applications. European Journal of operational research, 169(1), 1-29.

9) Park, S. M., & Kim, Y. G. (2022). A metaverse: Taxonomy, components, applications,

and open challenges. IEEE access, 10, 4209-4251

10) Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., & Shen, L. (2019). Blockchain technology and its
relationships to sustainable supply chain management. International journal of production
research, 57(7), 2117-2135.

11) Abdulrahman, Y., Arnautović, E., Parezanović, V., & Svetinovic, D. (2023). AI and
Blockchain Synergy in Aerospace Engineering: An Impact Survey on Operational
Efficiency and Technological Challenges. IEEE Access.

12) Ning, H., Wang, H., Lin, Y., Wang, W., Dhelim, S., Farha, F., ... & Daneshmand, M.
(2023). A Survey on the Metaverse: The State-of-the-Art, Technologies, Applications,
and Challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal.

60
13) Hwang, G. J., & Chien, S. Y. (2022). Definition, roles, and potential research issues of
the metaverse in education: An artificial intelligence perspective. Computers and
Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100082.

14) Ziakkas, D., Flores, A. D. C., & Suckow, M. W. (2023). Human Factors in Aviation and
Artificial Systems: The Purdue Aviation Virtual Reality case study. Intelligent Human
Systems Integration (IHSI 2023): Integrating People and Intelligent Systems, 69(69).

15) Mosco, V. (2023). Into the Metaverse: Technical Challenges, Social Problems, Utopian
Visions, and Policy Principles. Javnost-The Public, 1-13.

16) Lin, K. P., Tseng, M. L., & Pai, P. F. (2018). Sustainable supply chain management using
approximate fuzzy DEMATEL method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128,
134-142.

17) Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Baabdullah, A. M., Ribeiro-Navarrete, S., Giannakis, M., Al-
Debei, M. M., ... & Wamba, S. F. (2022). Metaverse beyond the hype: Multidisciplinary
perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice, and
policy. International Journal of Information Management, 66, 102542.

18) Özdağoğlu, A., & Özdağoğlu, G. (2007). Comparison of AHP and fuzzy AHP for the
multi-criteria decision-making processes with linguistic evaluations. İstanbul Ticaret
Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(11), 65-85.

19) Ratanavaraha, N., & Srisa-An, C. (2023). Unveiling Cybersecurity Factors in Thailand's
Metaverse Adoption. Migration Letters, 20(S4), 1039-1049.

20) Dwi Putra, M. S., Andryana, S., & Gunaryati, A. (2018). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy
process method to determine the quality of gemstones. Advances in Fuzzy Systems, 2018.

21) Soltani, A., & Marandi, E. Z. (2011). Hospital site selection using two-stage fuzzy multi-
criteria decision-making process. Journal of Urban and environmental engineering, 5(1),
32-43.

22) Lee, M. C. (2010). The analytic hierarchy and the network process in multicriteria
decision making: Performance evaluation and selecting key performance indicators based
on ANP model. Convergence and Hybrid Information Technologies, 426, 125-148.

23) Chen, Y., & Cheng, H. (2022). The economics of the metaverse: A comparison with the
real economy. Metaverse, 3(1), 19.

24) Dionisio, J. D. N., Iii, W. G. B., & Gilbert, R. (2013). 3D virtual worlds and the
metaverse: Current status and future possibilities. ACM Computing Surveys
(CSUR), 45(3), 1-38.

61
25) Wang, Y., Su, Z., Zhang, N., Xing, R., Liu, D., Luan, T. H., & Shen, X. (2022). A survey
on metaverse: Fundamentals, security, and privacy. IEEE Communications Surveys &
Tutorials, 25(1), 319-352.

26) Kye, B., Han, N., Kim, E., Park, Y., & Jo, S. (2021). Educational applications of
metaverse: possibilities and limitations. Journal of educational evaluation for health
professions, 18.

27) Siyaev, A., & Jo, G. S. (2021). Towards aircraft maintenance metaverse using speech
interactions with virtual objects in mixed reality. Sensors, 21(6), 2066.

28) Siyaev, A., & Jo, G. S. (2021). Neuro-symbolic speech understanding in aircraft
maintenance metaverse. Ieee Access, 9, 154484-154499.

29) Pradhan, P., Rostami, M., Kamoonpuri, J., & Chung, J. (2023). The State of Augmented
Reality in Aerospace Navigation and Engineering.

30) Xi, N., Chen, J., Gama, F., Riar, M., & Hamari, J. (2023). The challenges of entering the
metaverse: An experiment on the effect of extended reality on workload. Information
Systems Frontiers, 25(2), 659-680.

62