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

  • Akmaludin Akmaludin
  • Suryanto Suryanto

Abstract

Cara sitasi: Akmaludin, Suryanto. 2016. Pengambilan Keputusan Dalam Pemilihan Notebook Dengan Metode Multycriteria Decision Making (MCDM). Bina Insani ICT Journal. 3 (2): halaman. 329- 340.


Abstrak: Proses pengambilan keputusan akan selalu dihadapi oleh siapapun termasuk manajer,. Penggunakan produk berbasis teknologi berupa notebook menjadi fokus bagi seluruh user. Oleh sebab itu dibutuhkan suatu metode yang yang dapat digunakan untuk pemilihan notebook yaitu Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), salah satu pendekatan dari metode AHP adalah metode Multycriteria Decision Making (MCDM), pendekatan metode MCDM adalah untuk 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 yang sesuai dengan kebutuhan mahasiswa/i agar tidak mengecewakan mereka terhadap proses pemilihan notebook dikemudian hari. Produk notebook yang dibandingkan tentunya memiliki kelas yang sama yaitu Core i5 yang terdiri dari empat type dengan merk yang berbeda, yaitu SAMSUNG 470RE-K01ID, LENOVO G470-0137, ASUS A450CC-WX250D, dan TOSHIBA L840-1045. Dari penelitian ini model hirarki Metode MCDM dapat memberikan solusi yang terbaik bagi para pengambil keputusan, adapun hasil yang didapat dari penelitian ini memberikan bobot prioritas keputusan terhadap pemilihan notebook yang dimulai dari bobot terkecil yaitu TOSHIBA dengan priority 0.155; ASUS dengan priority 0.210; LENOVO dengan priority 0.268; dan SAMSUNG dengan priority 0.340. Adapun hasil pengujian priority dengan menggunakan Software pakage Expert Choice memberikan kesamaan output terhadap priority keputusan.

Kata kunci: MCDM, PHP, pengambilan keputusan, software pakage expert choice.

Abstract: Decision making process will be kept up-faced by anyone, including managers who have decision-making role in the organization that will be developed. To use of technology-based products such as notebooks become a focus for all users. Therefore, we need a method that can be used for the selection of notebooks. the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), one of the approaches of AHP is a method Multycriteria Decision Making (MCDM), MCDM method approach 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 three levels, namely Goal, Criteria, and Alternatives that can provide alternative solutions to the criteria and in accordance with the needs of the student , so as not to disappoint them against the electoral process in the future notebooks. Notebook products being compared must have the same class, namely Core i5 which consists of four types with different brands, namely SAMSUNG 470RE-K01ID, G470-0137 LENOVO, ASUS A450CC-WX250D, and TOSHIBA L840-1045. Priority of test results using pakage Expert Choice Software provides output to different priority thin decision.

Keywords: decision-making, MCDM,AHP, software pakage expert choice.

References

Referensi

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 Portsmouth-Business 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 287-292.

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 54-76: 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 193-202.

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 (OLD), [S.l.], v. 3, n. 2, p. 329- 340, dec. 2016. ISSN 2527-9777. Available at: <http://ejournal-binainsani.ac.id/index.php/BIICTJ/article/view/215>. Date accessed: 12 dec. 2019.