Averages below 0 shouldn't arise with methods such as k-means, unless there is a severe error. So no need to do a /2. If the method is more than "1" times worse then it failed badly.
But why do you use the abs? That means you lose the information whether you find better or worse results! Please, include the sign!
I don't think it's a good idea to measure the quality of different k-means variations in terms of Silhouette. Just evaluate SSQ, which is the objective used by k-means. So if you make yet another variant (there are literally hundreds of "improvements" of k-means already, are you sure your idea is new?) then it is most appropriate to evaluate how often (and how fast) you find better solutions than the standard k-means++ heuristic with a good algorithm such as Annulus k-means and Exponion k-means. Quality wise, I would give Hartigan and Wong's variant a try, as it may find better solutions than with just Voronoi iterations.
Silhouette is essentially a separate clustering objective. It's similar enough to k-means to make it useful to choose k; at least on small data because of computation cost. But there are also attempts to maximize Silhouette directly or as Post-Processing IIRC. So if you use Silhouette as baseline, you should likely compare to these approaches, too.