Note: Steps 1, 2 and 8 require formulation of constructs, identification/selection of factors / criteria

under each construct, formulation of questionnaire against the selected factors, collection of
data against the questionnaire, and assignment of “measurable objectives and observed clinical
probabilities. As these three steps are to be performed separately, they have not been made part
of this workbook

Step Description
A Conversion to Likert scale
Response against questionnaire is converted to Likert scale as given in 'TABLE FOR REF'.
3 Fuzzification of Linguistic Variables using TFN
The answers to the questions in the returned questionnaires are translated into TFN as per
Fuzzy linguistic scale given in 'TABLE FOR REF'.
4 Calculation of Distance ‘d’
Using equation (2), distance ‘d’ which is the difference between the ‘average of
evaluation of a criteria or factor by all the experts’ and ‘individual evaluation of a criteria
or factor by each expert’, is to be calculated.
5 Achievement of an Agreement
Calculation of distance ‘d’ of each criterion or factor against each expert is compared with
the threshold value of 0.2. If a threshold value is above 0.2, it means that physicians have
not reached a consensus towards the criterion and second round is required to recheck the
criterion. If the value stays more than 0.2 in the second round as well then, the factor or
criteria is not counted towards the consensus (step 6).
6 Consensus on Criterion or Factor.
Calculation of percentage of consensus of experts is calculated using equation (3). If the
calculated consensus percentage for a criterion is 75% or more than, it is assumed that
every criterion has reached the experts’ consensus. The process is repeated till the time a
consensus is reached.
7 Defuzzification.
Using equation (4), weight of each criterion or factor is to be determined. All criteria or
factors that have Amax less than α-cut-off value will be eliminated. When the remaining
criteria or factors are sorted, the weight ranks the criteria or factors.
 Financial Perspective Customer Perspective Lerning and Growth Internal Processes

Percentage of Spin Offs /

External Funding Raised

No of Products Licensed
Institutions/ Universities

No of Mentors/ Industry
Percentage of Occupied

No of Virtual Cohorts
Growth Rate of Turn

Capital Investments
Investment Returns

Networking Events

Marketting Budget
VC Funds Secured

Average Length of
Participation in in

No of Applicants
No of Innovative

%age Applicants

Space per Client

No Jobs Created

Access to Funds
R & D Budget
Links to other

No of Patents
Risk of death

Engagement
Professional
Profitability

Spin Outs

Products

accepted
Survival
Spece

Sales

Over

Out
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

S1 VI VI MI VI MI MI MI LI VI LI MI MI VI EI EI VI VI VI MI VI VI VI MI MI MI LI

S2 VI MI MI VI MI MI VI LI LI LI MI VI VI EI EI EI VI VI MI VI EI VI VI MI MI MI

S3 EI VI VI EI VI MI VI MI MI LI VI VI VI EI EI EI VI MI MI EI EI VI VI VI VI MI

S4 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI MI LI LI VI VI VI EI VI EI VI MI VI EI EI EI VI VI VI VI

S5 VI MI MI VI MI MI M LI MI LI MI MI EI EI EI EI VI VI MI VI VI VI MI MI MI MI

S6 VI MI MI VI VI MI VI LI LI LI MI VI VI EI EI VI VI MI MI VI EI VI VI MI MI MI

S7 EI VI MI EI VI MI VI MI MI LI VI VI VI EI EI EI VI VI MI EI EI VI VI VI VI MI

S8 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI LI MI LI VI VI EI EI EI EI EI VI MI EI EI VI VI VI VI VI

S9 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI MI LI LI VI VI EI EI VI EI VI MI VI EI EI EI VI VI VI VI

S10 VI MI MI VI MI MI M LI MI LI MI MI VI EI VI EI VI VI MI VI EI VI MI VI VI MI

S11 VI VI MI VI VI MI VI MI MI LI MI VI VI EI EI EI VI MI VI EI EI EI VI MI VI MI

S12 EI VI VI EI VI MI VI LI LI LI VI VI EI EI EI EI VI VI MI EI EI VI VI VI VI MI
S9
S8
S7
S6
S5
S4
S3
S2
S1
Respondent ID

S12
S11
S10

5
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
1
Percentage of Occupied Spece

4
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
2
Sales

4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
Profitability

5
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
4
4 Growth Rate of Turn Over

4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
5

External Funding Raised

Financial Perspective

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6

Investment Returns

4
4
6
4
4
4
4
6
4
4
4
3
7

Capital Investments
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
8

VC Funds Secured
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
4
1

Participation in in Networking Events

Custom
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Links to other Institutions/ Universities

4
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
Survival
Customer Perspective

4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
No Jobs Created

5
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
Percentage of Spin Offs / Spin Outs

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1 R & D Budget

5
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
2

Risk of death

5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
3

No of Innovative Products
Lerning and Growth

4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

No of Patents
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
5

No of Products Licensed Out

3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
1
No of Applicants

5
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
4
2
%age Applicants accepted

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
3
Marketting Budget

4
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
No of Virtual Cohorts

4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
5 Space per Client
Internal Processes

4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
6

No of Mentors/ Industry Professional

4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
7

Average Length of Engagement

3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
8

Access to Funds
5
4
3
2
1

EI
LI

VI
NI

MI
Not at all Important
Low Important
Moderately Important
Very Important
Extremely Important
 Financial Perspective Customer Perspective Lerning and

Participation in in Networking

Percentage of Spin Offs / Spin

Percentage of Occupied Spece

Links to other Institutions/

Growth Rate of Turn Over

External Funding Raised

Capital Investments
Investment Returns

VC Funds Secured

No Jobs Created

R & D Budget
Profitability

Universities

Survival
Events
Sales

Outs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 1
S1 VI VI MI VI MI MI M MI MI LI MI MI VI EI
S2 VI MI MI VI MI MI VI LI LI LI MI VI VI EI
S3 EI VI VI EI VI MI VI LI MI LI MI VI VI EI
S4 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI LI LI VI VI VI EI
S5 VI MI MI VI MI MI M NI MI LI MI MI EI EI
S6 VI MI MI VI VI MI VI LI LI LI MI VI VI EI
S7 EI VI MI EI VI MI VI LI MI LI VI VI VI EI
S8 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI LI MI LI VI VI EI EI
S9 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI LI LI VI VI EI EI
S10 VI MI MI VI MI MI M LI MI LI MI MI VI EI
S11 VI VI MI VI VI MI VI NI MI LI MI VI VI EI
S12 EI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI LI LI VI VI EI EI
Lerning and Growth Internal Processes

Average Length of Engagement

No of Products Licensed Out
No of Innovative Products

%age Applicants accepted

No of Mentors/ Industry
No of Virtual Cohorts
Marketting Budget
No of Applicants

Space per Client

Access to Funds
No of Patents
Risk of death

Professional
2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EI VI VI VI MI VI VI VI MI MI MI MI
EI VI VI VI MI VI VI VI VI MI MI MI
EI EI VI MI MI EI EI VI VI VI VI MI
VI EI VI MI VI EI EI EI VI VI VI VI
EI EI VI VI MI VI VI VI MI MI MI MI
EI VI VI MI MI VI EI VI VI MI MI MI
EI EI VI VI MI EI EI VI VI VI VI MI
EI EI VI VI MI EI EI VI VI VI VI VI
VI EI VI MI VI EI EI EI VI VI VI VI
VI EI VI VI MI VI EI VI MI VI VI MI
EI EI VI MI VI EI EI EI VI MI VI MI
EI EI VI VI MI EI EI VI VI VI VI MI
S9
S8
S7
S6
S5
S4
S3
S2
S1
Respondent ID

S12
S11
S10

5
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
1
Percentage of Occupied Spece

4
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
2
Sales

4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
Profitability

5
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
Growth Rate of Turn Over

4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
5
External Funding Raised

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
Financial Perspective

Investment Returns

4
4
6
4
4
4
4
6
4
4
4
6
7
Capital Investments

1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
8
VC Funds Secured

2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
1

Participation in in Networking Events

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Links to other Institutions/ Universities

4
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3

Survival

4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4

No Jobs Created
Customer Perspective

5
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
5

Percentage of Spin Offs / Spin Outs

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1

R & D Budget
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
2

Risk of death
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
3

No of Innovative Products
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

No of Patents
Lerning and Growth
g and Growth
No of Products Licensed Out
%age Applicants accepted
No of Applicants
5 1
4 3
4 3
3 3
3 4
4 3
3 3
4 3
4 3
3 4
4 3
3 4
4 3
Internal Processes
No of Virtual Cohorts
Marketting Budget
2 3
4 4
4 4
5 5
5 5
4 4
4 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
4 5
5 5
5 5
No of Mentors/ Industry Professional
Average Length of Engagement
Space per Client
Access to Funds
4 5 6 7 8
4 3 3 3 3 1 NI Not at all Important
4 4 3 3 3 2 LI Low Important
4 4 4 4 3 3 MI Moderately Important
5 4 4 4 4 4 VI Very Important
4 3 3 3 3 5 EI Extremely Important
4 4 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4
4 3 4 4 3
5 4 3 4 3
4 4 4 4 3
Step Factors affecting Financial Perspective
Number of Experts : 12 Number of experts is based on Jones & Twiss (1978) which states for the Delphi method, number of respondents is between 10-50 respondents.
LIKERT SCALE (CONSENSUS LEVEL)

A EXPERT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 VI VI MI VI MI MI M MI MI 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 NI Not at all Important 1 0.2 0 0
2 VI MI MI VI MI MI VI LI LI 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 2 LI Low Important 2 0.4 0.2 0
3 EI VI VI EI VI MI VI LI LI 5 4 4 5 4 3 4 2 2 MI Moderately Importan 3 0.6 0.4 0.2
4 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI NI 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 1 1 VI Very Important 4 0.8 0.6 0.4
5 VI MI MI VI MI MI M NI NI 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 1 EI Extremely Important 5 1 0.8 0.6
6 VI MI MI VI VI MI VI LI LI 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 2 2
7 EI VI MI EI VI MI VI LI LI 5 4 3 5 4 3 4 2 2
8 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI LI LI 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 2 2
9 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI NI 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 1 1
10 VI MI MI VI MI MI M LI LI 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 2
11 VI VI MI VI VI MI VI NI NI 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 1 1
12 EI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI NI 5 4 4 5 4 3 4 1 1

3 AVERAGE VALUE FROM THE IMPORTANCE WEIGHT OF CRITERIA ( m1 , m2 , m3 )

EXPERT FUZZY SCALE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2
2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
3 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
5 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
7 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
9 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
10 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
11 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
12 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
AVERAGE 0.850 0.650 0.450 0.733 0.517 0.333 0.683 0.483 0.283 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.733 0.533 0.333 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.750 0.550 0.350 0.333 0.317 0.300 0.333 0.133 0.017
m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3

4 DISTANCE 'd'

EXPERT CRITERIA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.400
2 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100
3 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100
4 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.200
5 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200
6 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100
7 0.200 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100
8 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100
9 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.200
10 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.100 0.100
11 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.200
12 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.200
5 Average Value d 0.125 0.133 0.142 0.200 0.133 0.000 0.125 0.150 0.167
Value d construct 0.131 Required Value of d ≤ 0.2
0.011

6 PERCENTAGE OF CONSENSUS OF EACH ITEM AND OVERALL ITEMS

ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Number of Item d ≤ 0.2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11
% of each Item d ≤ 0.2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92%
Overall % of Item d ≤ 0.2 99%

7 DEFUZZIFICATION - DETERMINING SCORE (RANKING/ IMPORTANCE OF ITEM)

For the defuzzification process, there are 3 formulas that can be used to determine the ranking / score of an item, The formula is as the following:

ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL OF EACH 10.20 7.80 5.40 8.80 6.20 4.00 8.20 5.80 3.40 10.80 8.40 6.00 8.80 6.40 4.00 7.20 4.80 2.40 9.00 6.60 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 4.00 1.60 0.20
ELEMENT m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3
FUZZY EVALUATION 7.800 6.333 5.800 8.400 6.400 4.800 6.600 3.800 1.933
SCORE 2 5 6 1 4 7 3 8 9
AVG OF EACH 0.850 0.650 0.450 0.733 0.517 0.333 0.683 0.483 0.283 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.733 0.533 0.333 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.750 0.550 0.350 0.333 0.317 0.300 0.333 0.133 0.017
ELEMENT m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3
AVG OF F/NUMBER 0.650 0.528 0.483 0.700 0.533 0.400 0.550 0.317 0.161
SCORE 2 5 6 1 4 7 3 8 9
Step Factors affecting Customer Perspective
Number of Experts : 12 Number of experts is based on Jones & Twiss (1978) which states for the Delphi method, number of respondents is between 10-50 respondents.
LIKERT SCALE (CONSENSUS LEVEL)

A EXPERT 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 EI EI VI VI VI 5 5 4 4 4 NI Not at all Important 1 0.2 0 0
2 EI EI VI VI VI 5 5 4 4 4 SI Slightly Important 2 0.4 0.2 0
3 EI EI EI VI MI 5 5 5 4 3 MI Moderately Important 3 0.6 0.4 0.2
4 EI VI EI VI MI 5 4 5 4 3 VI Very Important 4 0.8 0.6 0.4
5 EI EI EI VI VI 5 5 5 4 4 EI Extremely Important 5 1 0.8 0.6
6 EI EI VI VI MI 5 5 4 4 3
7 EI EI EI VI VI 5 5 5 4 4
8 EI EI EI VI VI 5 5 5 4 4
9 EI VI EI VI MI 5 4 5 4 3
10 EI VI EI VI VI 5 4 5 4 4
11 EI EI EI VI MI 5 5 5 4 3
12 EI EI EI VI VI 5 5 5 4 4

3 AVERAGE VALUE FROM THE IMPORTANCE WEIGHT OF CRITERIA ( m1 , m2 , m3 )

EXPERT FUZZY SCALE

1 2 3 4 5
1 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
2 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
3 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2
4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2
5 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2
7 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
8 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
9 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2
10 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
11 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2
12 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
AVERAGE 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.950 0.733 0.550 0.950 0.750 0.550 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.717 0.517 0.317
m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3

4 DISTANCE 'd'

EXPERT CRITERIA
1 2 3 4 5
1 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.000 0.100
2 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.000 0.100
3 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.200
4 0.000 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.200
5 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.100
6 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.000 0.200
7 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.100
8 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.100
9 0.000 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.200
10 0.000 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100
11 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.200
12 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.100
5 Average Value d 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.142
Value d construct 0.078 Required Value of d ≤ 0.2
0.004

6 PERCENTAGE OF CONSENSUS OF EACH ITEM AND OVERALL ITEMS

ITEM 1 2 3 4 5
Number of Item d ≤ 0.2 12 12 12 12 12
% of each Item d ≤ 0.2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Overall % of Item d ≤ 0.2 100%

7 DEFUZZIFICATION - DETERMINING SCORE (RANKING/ IMPORTANCE OF ITEM)

For the defuzzification process, there are 3 formulas that can be used to determine the ranking / score of an item, The formula is as the following:

ITEM 1 2 3 4 5
TOTAL OF EACH 12.00 9.60 7.20 11.40 8.80 6.60 11.40 9.00 6.60 9.60 7.20 4.80 8.60 6.20 3.80
ELEMENT m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3
FUZZY EVALUATION 9.600 8.933 9.000 7.200 6.200
SCORE 1 3 2 4 5
AVG OF EACH 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.950 0.733 0.550 0.950 0.750 0.550 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.717 0.517 0.317
ELEMENT m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3
AVG OF F/NUMBER 0.800 0.744 0.750 0.600 0.517
SCORE 1 3 2 4 5
Step Factors affecting Learning and Growth Perspective
Number of Experts : 12 Number of experts is based on Jones & Twiss (1978) which states for the Delphi method, number of respondents is between 10-50 respondents.
LIKERT SCALE (CONSENSUS LEVEL)

A EXPERT 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 EI EI VI VI VI VI 5 5 4 4 4 4 NI Not at all Important 1 0.2 0 0
2 EI EI VI VI VI VI 5 5 4 4 4 4 SI Slightly Important 2 0.4 0.2 0
3 EI EI EI VI MI MI 5 5 5 4 3 3 MI Moderately Important 3 0.6 0.4 0.2
4 EI VI EI VI MI MI 5 4 5 4 3 3 VI Very Important 4 0.8 0.6 0.4
5 EI EI EI VI VI VI 5 5 5 4 4 4 EI Extremely Important 5 1 0.8 0.6
6 EI EI VI VI MI MI 5 5 4 4 3 3
7 EI EI EI VI VI VI 5 5 5 4 4 4
8 EI EI EI VI VI VI 5 5 5 4 4 4
9 EI VI EI VI MI MI 5 4 5 4 3 3
10 EI VI EI VI VI VI 5 4 5 4 4 4
11 EI EI EI VI MI MI 5 5 5 4 3 3
12 EI EI EI VI VI VI 5 5 5 4 4 4

3 AVERAGE VALUE FROM THE IMPORTANCE WEIGHT OF CRITERIA ( m1 , m2 , m3 )

EXPERT FUZZY SCALE

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
2 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
3 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2
4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2
5 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2
7 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
8 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
9 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2
10 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
11 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2
12 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4
AVERAGE 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.950 0.733 0.550 0.950 0.750 0.550 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.717 0.517 0.317 0.717 0.517 0.317
m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3

4 DISTANCE 'd'

EXPERT CRITERIA
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.000 0.100 0.100
2 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.000 0.100 0.100
3 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.200 0.200
4 0.000 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.200 0.200
5 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100
6 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.200
7 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100
8 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100
9 0.000 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.200 0.200
10 0.000 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100
11 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.200 0.200
12 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100
5 Average Value d 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.142 0.142
Value d construct 0.078 Required Value of d ≤ 0.2
0.004

6 PERCENTAGE OF CONSENSUS OF EACH ITEM AND OVERALL ITEMS

ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of Item d ≤ 0.2 12 12 12 12 12 12
% of each Item d ≤ 0.2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Overall % of Item d ≤ 0.2 100%

7 DEFUZZIFICATION - DETERMINING SCORE (RANKING/ IMPORTANCE OF ITEM)

For the defuzzification process, there are 3 formulas that can be used to determine the ranking / score of an item, The formula is as the following:

ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6
TOTAL OF EACH 12.00 9.60 7.20 11.40 8.80 6.60 11.40 9.00 6.60 9.60 7.20 4.80 8.60 6.20 3.80 8.60 6.20 3.80
ELEMENT m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3
FUZZY EVALUATION 9.600 8.933 9.000 7.200 6.200 6.200
SCORE 1 3 2 4 5 6
AVG OF EACH 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.950 0.733 0.550 0.950 0.750 0.550 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.717 0.517 0.317 0.717 0.517 0.317
ELEMENT m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3
AVG OF F/NUMBER 0.800 0.744 0.750 0.600 0.517 0.517
SCORE 1 3 2 4 5 5
Step Factors affecting Internal Processes Perspective
Number of Experts : 12 Number of experts is based on Jones & Twiss (1978) which states for the Delphi method, number of respondents is between 10-50 respondents.
LIKERT SCALE (CONSENSUS LEVEL)

A EXPERT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 VI VI MI VI MI MI M MI MI 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 NI Not at all Important 1 0.2 0 0
2 VI MI MI VI MI MI VI LI LI 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 2 LI Low Important 2 0.4 0.2 0
3 EI VI VI EI VI MI VI LI LI 5 4 4 5 4 3 4 2 2 MI Moderately Importan 3 0.6 0.4 0.2
4 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI NI 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 1 1 VI Very Important 4 0.8 0.6 0.4
5 VI MI MI VI MI MI M NI NI 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 1 EI Extremely Important 5 1 0.8 0.6
6 VI MI MI VI VI MI VI LI LI 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 2 2
7 EI VI MI EI VI MI VI LI LI 5 4 3 5 4 3 4 2 2
8 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI LI LI 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 2 2
9 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI NI 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 1 1
10 VI MI MI VI MI MI M LI LI 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 2
11 VI VI MI VI VI MI VI NI NI 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 1 1
12 EI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI NI 5 4 4 5 4 3 4 1 1

3 AVERAGE VALUE FROM THE IMPORTANCE WEIGHT OF CRITERIA ( m1 , m2 , m3 )

EXPERT FUZZY SCALE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2
2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
3 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
5 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
7 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
9 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
10 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0
11 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
12 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0
AVERAGE 0.850 0.650 0.450 0.733 0.517 0.333 0.683 0.483 0.283 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.733 0.533 0.333 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.750 0.550 0.350 0.333 0.317 0.300 0.333 0.133 0.017
m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3

4 DISTANCE 'd'

EXPERT CRITERIA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.400
2 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100
3 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100
4 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.200
5 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200
6 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100
7 0.200 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100
8 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100
9 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.200
10 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.100 0.100
11 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.200
12 0.200 0.100 0.200 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.200
5 Average Value d 0.125 0.133 0.142 0.200 0.133 0.000 0.125 0.150 0.167
Value d construct 0.131 Required Value of d ≤ 0.2
0.011

6 PERCENTAGE OF CONSENSUS OF EACH ITEM AND OVERALL ITEMS

ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Number of Item d ≤ 0.2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11
% of each Item d ≤ 0.2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92%
Overall % of Item d ≤ 0.2 99%

7 DEFUZZIFICATION - DETERMINING SCORE (RANKING/ IMPORTANCE OF ITEM)

For the defuzzification process, there are 3 formulas that can be used to determine the ranking / score of an item, The formula is as the following:

ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL OF EACH 10.20 7.80 5.40 8.80 6.20 4.00 8.20 5.80 3.40 10.80 8.40 6.00 8.80 6.40 4.00 7.20 4.80 2.40 9.00 6.60 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 4.00 1.60 0.20
ELEMENT m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3
FUZZY EVALUATION 7.800 6.333 5.800 8.400 6.400 4.800 6.600 3.800 1.933
SCORE 2 5 6 1 4 7 3 8 9
AVG OF EACH 0.850 0.650 0.450 0.733 0.517 0.333 0.683 0.483 0.283 0.900 0.700 0.500 0.733 0.533 0.333 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.750 0.550 0.350 0.333 0.317 0.300 0.333 0.133 0.017
ELEMENT m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3 m1 m2 m3
AVG OF F/NUMBER 0.650 0.528 0.483 0.700 0.533 0.400 0.550 0.317 0.161
SCORE 2 5 6 1 4 7 3 8 9
 Financial Perspective Customer Perspective

External Funding Raised

Institutions/ Universities
Percentage of Occupied

Growth Rate of Turn

Capital Investments
Investment Returns

Networking Events
VC Funds Secured

Participation in in

Links to other
Profitability
Spece

Sales

Over
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2
S1 VI VI MI VI MI MI M MI MI EI EI
S2 VI MI MI VI MI MI VI LI LI EI EI
S3 EI VI VI EI VI MI VI LI LI EI EI
S4 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI NI EI VI
S5 VI MI MI VI MI MI M NI NI EI EI
S6 VI MI MI VI VI MI VI LI LI EI EI
S7 EI VI MI EI VI MI VI LI LI EI EI
S8 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI LI LI EI EI
S9 VI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI NI EI VI
S10 VI MI MI VI MI MI M LI LI EI VI
S11 VI VI MI VI VI MI VI NI NI EI EI
S12 EI VI VI EI VI MI VI NI NI EI EI

d 0.125 0.133 0.142 0.200 0.133 0.000 0.125 0.150 0.167 0.000 0.744
Wi 0.650 0.528 0.483 0.700 0.533 0.400 0.550 0.317 0.161 0.800 0.161
Rank 2 5 6 1 4 7 3 8 9 1 9

Total Criteria 9 5
Selected Criteri 5 4
Customer Perspective Lerning and Growth Internal Processes

Percentage of Spin Offs /

No of Products Licensed

No of Virtual Cohorts
Marketting Budget
No of Applicants
No of Innovative

%age Applicants
No Jobs Created

R & D Budget

No of Patents
Risk of death
Spin Outs

Products

accepted
Survival

Out
3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
VI VI VI EI EI VI VI VI VI VI VI MI VI
VI VI VI EI EI VI VI VI VI VI MI MI VI
EI VI MI EI EI EI VI MI MI EI VI VI EI
EI VI MI EI VI EI VI MI MI VI VI VI EI
EI VI VI EI EI EI VI VI VI VI MI MI VI
VI VI MI EI EI VI VI MI MI VI MI MI VI
EI VI VI EI EI EI VI VI VI EI VI MI EI
EI VI VI EI EI EI VI VI VI VI VI VI EI
EI VI MI EI VI EI VI MI MI VI VI VI EI
EI VI VI EI VI EI VI VI VI VI MI MI VI
EI VI MI EI EI EI VI MI MI VI VI MI VI
EI VI VI EI EI EI VI VI VI EI VI VI EI

0.125 0.000 0.142 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.142 0.142 0.125 0.133 0.142 0.200
0.750 0.600 0.517 0.800 0.744 0.750 0.600 0.517 0.517 0.650 0.528 0.483 0.700
2 4 5 1 3 2 4 5 5 2 5 6 1

5 6 9
4 6 5
Internal Processes

No of Mentors/ Industry

No of Training Hours
Average Length of
Space per Client

Access to Funds
Engagement
Professional

5 6 7 8 9
MI MI M MI MI
MI MI VI LI LI
VI MI VI LI LI
VI MI VI NI NI
MI MI M NI NI
VI MI VI LI LI
VI MI VI LI LI
VI MI VI LI LI
VI MI VI NI NI
MI MI M LI LI
VI MI VI NI NI
VI MI VI NI NI

0.133 0.000 0.125 0.150 0.167

0.533 0.400 0.550 0.317 0.161
4 7 3 8 9

9
5
 DO NOT DELETE THIS TABLE RESPONSE LIKERT

NI Not at all Important 1 0.0 0.0 0.2 1 NI

SI Slightly Important 2 0.0 0.2 0.4 2 LI
MI Moderately Important 3 0.2 0.4 0.6 3 MI
VI Very Important 4 0.4 0.6 0.8 4 VI
EI Extremely Important 5 0.6 0.8 1.0 5 EI
PONSE LIKERT SCALE

Not at all Important

Low Important
Moderately Important
Very Important
Extremely Important