SEMI – FINAL GROUPS
The teams were assigned in groups of 3-4 (working on the same case, same domain and one mixed group with various cases). Every group gets to be judged by one mentor, one domain expert (from the company which provides the case) and one DSS expert. In the groups with two cases, both industry experts were jury. Whenever jury member did not submit ranking, DSS appointed a suitable mentor as a replacement. In case of tie, we weight the mentor and then the industry expert higher. The team which got ranked at the top of their group qualifies for the final. The jury vote was based mainly on the content of the articles of the teams. The Jury members provided feedback below each article.
So the finalist are:
After the final 8 teams were announced, they had a live presentation (over Google hangout and in person) followed by Q&A session by the Jury and the audience.
Final ranking with concordance measure (Kendall W) and significance measure (Chi Sq)
The procedure for ranking follows Spearman & Kendall Rank correlation method (which requires a minimum of 8 objects and 11 rankings). The team with the best collective rank wins. Kendall concordance (0,1) is used for measuring consensus. Chi-square is used for measuring statistical significance.
Pairwise Spearman correlation among Jury members’ rankings and Jury group rank
As additional analysis the pairwise Spearman correlation (-1,1) renders similarities between each pair of Jury member and also each Jury member and the Jury group ranking. Values (-.35,.35) are considered no correlation, values (|.35|,|.70|) are considered weak correlation, values (|.70|,|1.0|) are considered strong correlation.
Sociogram based on Jury members’ rankings
As one more additional visualization, the sociogram renders (with arrows) correlation >.35 (at least weak consensus). Note: topological distance does not reflect correlation distance, as the configuration is settled by push-pull algorithm.
And the winners are