Analisis Penentuan Weight Priority Menggunakan Pendekatan Geometric Mean dengan Metode Sumvector Untuk Pemilihan Fasilitas di Lingkungan Perumahan

Analisis Penentuan Weight Priority Menggunakan Pendekatan Geometric Mean dengan Metode Sumvector Untuk Pemilihan Fasilitas di Lingkungan Perumahan

• By Akmaludin, Akmaludin;
• Jurnal Nasional Tidak Terakreditasi
• 294
• 1-10

Used of methods in the development of the Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) varies once, including approaches by using the geometric mean. This approach uses a technique that is much different as it is done with the approach of Multi Criteria Analysis and its derivatives. In the selection of facilities in a residential area is needed at all levels how to measure the priority of a number of criteria and sub-criteria used. Therefore the geometric mean approach is used as a barometer in a solution approach to determine the weight of its priorities. There are several criteria used to assess the electoral environment of residential facilities that include criteria for benefits, the role of the public contribution, the role of local government, and community aspects of the criteria. These criteria will be assessed as a primary criterion in the discussion of this paper, which is used as an alternative while pemilihat facilities include entertainment facilities, sports facilities, transportation facilities, and shopping facilities. From the discussion, this paper obtained the priority level of the acquisition value of the synthesize as follows: ranked first decision and further includes means of transport, means of entertainment, shopping facilities, and a final ranking sports facilities, with the predicate of each in sequence is 0.397; 0.273; 0.173; 0,157. The value of this decision is the final synthesis.

• Katakunci Weight priority, Sumvector, AHP, Geometric mean.
• URL https://ejournal.nusamandiri.ac.id/index.php/pilar/article/view/434
• Penerbit ,

REFERENSI

Saaty, Thomas L. 2003. Decision-Making  with the AHP; Why is the Principal eigenvector necessary: European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) p 85–91.
 
Ishizaka, Allesio, Namery Philippe. 2013. A multy criteria groups decision frame work for partner grouping when sharing facilities. Groups Decision and Negotiation. Portmouth Business School-UK. Page 1-28.
 
Yang, Jiaqin and Shi, Ping . 2002. Applying Analytic Hierarchical Process in firm overall performance evaluation; a case study in China. International of business (7) 1-2002 ISSN: 1083-4346, p. 29-45.
 
Coulter, Elizabeth D. 2004. Setting forest road maintenance and upgrade priorities based on environtment effects and expert judgment: A Disertation doctor of philosophy in forest enginering:. Commencement in June 2005.Oregon State University-USA. p 21-22
 
Coulter, Elizabeth D., Coakley, J, Sessions, J. 2012. The analytic hierarchical process: The tutorial for use in prioritizing forest Road investments to minimize environmental effects: International journal of forest engineering. Montana, USA. p 51-69 
 
Saaty, Thomas L. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchical process: International Journal survices sciences Vol. 1 No.1 2008. p 83-98
 
Meixner O., R. Haas. 2002. Computergestütze Entscheidungsfindung. Ahli Choise und AHP : inovatif werkzeuge zur Losung komplexer Probleme. Frankfur, Wien: Redline Wirtschaft.
 
Gotze U. 2008. Investitionsrechnung: Modelle und Analysen zur Beurteilung von Investitionsvorhaben. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
 
Saaty Thomas L, Vargas LG. 2001. Model, Metode, Konsep & Aplikasi Analytic Hierarchy Process. Boston et al: Kluwer Academic Publishers
 
Zimmer, S., Klumpp, M., Abidi, H. 2011. Industry project evaluation with the analytic hierarchical process. Institute for logistic and services management fom university of apllied science assen. Leimkugelstrabe 6-45141. EssenGermany. www.fom-ild.de. P. 01-09.
 
Tomić,V.,Marinković, Z.Janošević. D. 2011. Promethee method implementation with multi criteria decisions.. Mechanical Engineering Faculty, University of Niš, A. Medvedeva 14, Niš, Serbia, Mechanical Engineering Vol. 9, No 2, 2011, pp. 193 - 202