Pengambilan Keputusan Dalam Pemilihan Notebook Berbasis Teknologi dengan Metode Multycriteria Decision Making (MCDM)

  • Akmaludin Akmaludin Manajemen Informatika, AMIK BSI Jakarta
  • Suryanto Suryanto Manajemen Informatika, AMIK BSI Jakarta

Abstract

Abstrak: Proses pengambilan keputusan akan selalu dihadapi oleh siapapun termasukmanajer,. Penggunakan produk berbasis teknologi berupa notebook menjadi fokus bagi seluruhuser. Oleh sebab itu dibutuhkan suatu metode yang yang dapat digunakan untuk pemilihannotebook yaitu Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), salah satu pendekatan dari metode AHPadalah metode Multycriteria Decision Making (MCDM), pendekatan metode MCDM adalahuntuk memberikan solusi kepada user memilih produk berbasis teknologi seperti notebook.Penerapan metode MCDM menyederhanakan permasalahan menjadi tiga level yaitu Goal,Criteria, dan Alternative yang mampu memberikan solusi atas criteria dan alternative yangsesuai dengan kebutuhan mahasiswa/i agar tidak mengecewakan mereka terhadap prosespemilihan notebook dikemudian hari. Produk notebook yang dibandingkan tentunya memilikikelas yang sama yaitu Core i5 yang terdiri dari empat type dengan merk yang berbeda, yaituSAMSUNG 470RE-K01ID, LENOVO G470-0137, ASUS A450CC-WX250D, dan TOSHIBAL840-1045. Dari penelitian ini model hirarki Metode MCDM dapat memberikan solusi yangterbaik bagi para pengambil keputusan, adapun hasil yang didapat dari penelitian inimemberikan bobot prioritas keputusan terhadap pemilihan notebook yang dimulai dari bobotterkecil yaitu TOSHIBA dengan priority 0.155; ASUS dengan priority 0.210; LENOVO denganpriority 0.268; dan SAMSUNG dengan priority 0.340. Adapun hasil pengujian priority denganmenggunakan Software pakage Expert Choice memberikan kesamaan output terhadap prioritykeputusan.
Kata kunci: MCDM, PHP, pengambilan keputusan, software pakage expert choice.
Abstract: Decision making process will be kept up-faced by anyone, including managers whohave decision-making role in the organization that will be developed. To use of technologybasedproductssuchasnotebooksbecomeafocusforallusers.Therefore,weneedamethod
that
can be used for the selection of notebooks. the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), one ofthe approaches of AHP is a method Multycriteria Decision Making (MCDM), MCDM methodapproach is to provide a solution to the user choose form technology-based products notebook.The application of MCDM method is a hierarchical model that simplifies the problem into threelevels, namely Goal, Criteria, and Alternatives that can provide alternative solutions to thecriteria and in accordance with the needs of the student , so as not to disappoint them againstthe electoral process in the future notebooks. Notebook products being compared must havethe same class, namely Core i5 which consists of four types with different brands, namelySAMSUNG 470RE-K01ID, G470-0137 LENOVO, ASUS A450CC-WX250D, and TOSHIBAL840-1045. Priority of test results using pakage Expert Choice Software provides output todifferent priority thin decision.
Keywords: decision-making, MCDM,AHP, software pakage expert choice.

Author Biographies

Akmaludin Akmaludin, Manajemen Informatika, AMIK BSI Jakarta
 Manajemen Informatika, AMIK BSI Jakarta
Suryanto Suryanto, Manajemen Informatika, AMIK BSI Jakarta
Manajemen Informatika, AMIK BSI Jakarta

References

Ampuh H, Rika. 2005. A multi Criteria approach to designing the celluler
manufacturing system. Jurnal Teknik Industri Universitas Kristen Petra
Vol. 7 No.1 p. 41-42.

Anagnostopoulos KP, Vavatsiko AP. 2006. An Analytic Hierarchi Process Model for construction
contractor prequalification. Operational research.An International Journal Vol. 6, No. 3.p
333-346.

Asamoa D, Annan J, Nyarko S. 2012. Analytic Hierarchi Process Approach for Supplier
Evaluation and Selection in Pharmauticeutical Manufacturing Firm in Ghana. International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7, No.10; May 2012. p 49-62.

Coulter ED, Coakley J, Sessions J. 2012. The Analytic Hierarchi Process: A Tutorial for Use in
Prioritizing Forest Road Invesments to Minimize Environtment Effects. International
Journal of Forest Engineering, 2012.51-69.

Forman E, Gass S. 2008. [e-document]. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. 86 p [Referred to on
27 10.2008]. Available: http://mdm.gwu.edu/forman/ahpexpo.zip.

Gilliam S, Raymaekers DMB, Vans OJ..2007. Comparing multiple criteria decision methods to
extend a geographical information system on afforestation. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture.p 142-158.

Haas R., Meixner O. 2008. [e-document]. An illustrated guide to Analytical Hierarchy
Process.University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna.[Referred to
on 10.09.2008].

Ishizaka A, Nameray P. 2013. A multi-criteria group decision framework for partner grouping
when sharing facilities, Groups decision and negotiation. University of PortsmouthBusiness
School,
UK.
773-799.


Kunz J. 2010. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Eagle city Hall Location Task Force. March
2010.

Saaty TL. 1990. The Analytic Hierarchical Process. RWS Publications, Pittburgh, PA.

Saaty TL, Vargas LG. 2000. Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic
Hierarchy Process.Springer (1st edition), ISBN 978-0792372677.352 p.

Saaty, TL. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchi process: Int. J. Services Sciences,
Vol. 1, No. 1. 2008 p. 83-98.

Sen DK, Dubay SK., Talankar AA. 2012. Analytical Hierarchi Process, Applied to vendor
selection problem in small and medium scale enterprises. VSRD International Journal of
Mechanical, automobile and production engineering, Vol. 2, No. 8 October 2012. p 287292.

Susila WR., Munadi E. 2007. Application of analytical hierarchical process on prioritizing
research proposal. Informatika pertanian, Vol. 16 No.2 2007.p 983-998.

Tahriri F, Osman MR, Ali A, Yusuf RM, Esfandiary A. 2008. AHP Approach for supplier
evaluation and selection in a steel manufacturing company: Journal of industry
Engineering and Manajement. University Putra Malaysia. JIEM 2008 Vol.1 No. 2, p 5476:
ISSN
1213-0953


Taslicali, Ali K, Ercan S. 2006. The analytic hierarchi &The analytic network process in
multicriteria decision making: a comparative study. Journal of aeronautic and space
technologies Volume 2, Number 4, p 55-65.

Tomic V, Marincovic Z, Jonosovic D. 2011. Promethee method implementation with multicriteria
decisions. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering. Vol. 9 No. 2, 2011.p 193202.



Zimmer S, Klumpp M, Abidi H. 2011. Industry project evaluation with the analytic hierarchi
process. Institute for logistics and service management FOM university of Applied
Science Essen, Germany.

Zimmer S, Labib A. 2009. Analysis Hierarchi Process dan Expert Choice: Benefit and
limitations. ORinsight.22(4). University of portmouth-business school, United Kingdom.p
201-220
Published
2016-12-01
How to Cite
AKMALUDIN, Akmaludin; SURYANTO, Suryanto. Pengambilan Keputusan Dalam Pemilihan Notebook Berbasis Teknologi dengan Metode Multycriteria Decision Making (MCDM). Bina Insani ICT Journal, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 2, p. 329-340, dec. 2016. ISSN 2527-9777. Available at: <http://ejournal-binainsani.ac.id/index.php/BIICT/article/view/837>. Date accessed: 21 oct. 2018.