Multi Criteria Analysis Menentukan Point Weight Comparison dalam Penetapan Desision Priority

Multi Criteria Analysis Menentukan Point Weight Comparison dalam Penetapan Desision Priority

• By Akmaludin, Akmaludin;
• Jurnal Nasional Tidak Terakreditasi
• 136
• 11-19

Decision-making method being used in the Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP), each method has different characteristics, it can be seen from how the data acquisition was doing, whether using a single data or data groups, then how to determine the scale that will be used , and how the determination of the amount to be entered into pairwise matrix. Each method has its own way and each method will yield the amount of different values, but about priorities can result in the same decision. In this paper will try to discuss the differences in data processing, the methods used, the determination of pairwise matrix and the resulting acquisition priorities. Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) provides an overview of the differences produced by these methods.

• Katakunci Analisis multi kriteria, Konsistensi, Skala prioritas.
• URL https://ejournal.nusamandiri.ac.id/index.php/pilar/article/view/408
• Penerbit Jurnal Pilar Nusa Mandiri, Jakarta DKI Jakarta

REFERENSI

Asamoah, D., Annan J., Nyarko, S. 2012. International journal of business management: AHP Approach for supplier selection in a pharmaceutical manufacturing in Ghana. E-ISSN 18338119.Vol. 7 No. 10, May 2012. pages 49-62. 
 
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 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
 
Gotze U., 2008: Investitionsrechnung: Modelle und Analysen zur Beurteilung von Investitionsvorhaben. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
 
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. Pages 128.
 
Meixner O., R. Haas, 2002. Computergestütze Entscheidungsfindung. Ahli Choise und AHP : inovatif werkzeuge zur Losung komplexer Probleme. Frankfur, Wien: Redline Wirtschaft. 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.
 
Saaty, Thomas L. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchical process: International Journal survices sciences Vol. 1 No.1 2008. p 83-98
 
Saaty Thomas L, Vargas LG (2001): Model, Metode, Konsep & Aplikasi Analytic Hierarchy Process. Boston et al: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Young, K.D. 2006. Thesis: Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Optimization Algorithm in Best Management Practice Selection: the faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. p 23-35.
 
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. Essen-Germany. www.fom-ild.de. Pages. 01-09.