The Best Selection of Programmers in Generation 4.0 Using AHP and ELECTRE Elimination Methods.

The Best Selection of Programmers in Generation 4.0 Using AHP and ELECTRE Elimination Methods.

• By Akmaludin, Akmaludin; Hartati, Tri; Purwanto, Heru; Sukendar, Toni; Latifah, Fitri; Septiana, Laila;
• Jurnal Internasional Bereputasi
• 136
• 1-7

The quality of data processing in information systems in the 4.0 industrial era is expected to be in the form of paperless-based digitalization, thus a number of capable and reliable users are needed in terms of data processing in the form of digitalization, the means developed can be through the internet or via smartphone-based on Android. The need for The best programmer is certainly very needed in terms of data development and processing and information delivery. This needs to be done so that the process of sending data and information can be done simply and very high speed, because the transfer of resources has been converted into digital form. The need for programmer staff must be selected consistently so that users who are accepted as the best and reliable programmers according to job requirements, from ten programmers with collaboration AHP method and ELECTRE can provide optimal decisions with the following results, programmer code P5, P6, P7 and P10 get the biggest score with weight of 3, followed by programmer code P9 with weight of 2, and followed by programmer code P1, P2, P8 with weight of 1, and there are two programmer codes which are eliminated by the ELECTRE method, P3 and P4. The collaboration in the method of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and ELECTRE Elimination which is the crystallization of the Multi-criteria Decision Making (MCDM) can be a decision support in the selection process of the best programmers to produce optimal decisions

• Katakunci
• URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1477/3/032001/pdf
• Penerbit ,

REFERENSI

[1] A. Rojko, “International journal of interactive mobile technologies : iJIM.,” Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 77–90, 2017.

[2] P. D. Wegener, “Revolutionizes the production chain The world is going digital in B2C – new innovative business models are bringing about a change in user behavior,” 2018.

[3] J. M. Fernandes, S. P. Rodrigues, and L. A. Costa, “Comparing AHP and ELECTRE i for prioritizing software requirements,” IEEE, 2015.

[4] F. Rahma Sari, “Penerapan Metode Analytic Hierarchy Process dalam Sistem Penunjang Keputusan untuk Pemiihan Asuransi,” J. Syst. Inf. MTI UI, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 103, 1393.

[5] B. X. Wang and E. Triantaphyllou, “Ranking Irregularities when Evaluating Alternatives by Using Some Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods Abstract : Keywords : 1 Introduction to MCDA,” vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2006.

[6] Ermatita, Sri Hartati, R. Wardoyo, and A. Harjoko, “Electre Methods in Solving Group Decision Support System Bioinformatics on Gene Mutation Detection Simulation,” Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 40–52, 2011.

[7] S. A. S. A. Mary and G. Suganya, “Multi-Criteria Decision Making Using ELECTRE,” Circuits Syst., vol. 07, no. 06, pp. 1008–1020, 2016.

[8] D. Agarwal, K. Basu, S. Ghosh, Y. Xuan, Y. Yang, and L. Zhang, “Online Parameter Selection for Web-based Ranking Problems,” pp. 23–32, 2018.

[9] A. Ishizaka and A. Labib, “Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and limitations,” OR Insight, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 201–220, 2009.

[10] N. Caterino, I. Iervolino, G. Manfredi, and E. Cosenza, “Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for seismic structural retrofitting,” Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 432–445, 2009.

[11] F. O. R. The, L. A. Y. Person, and S. Lipovetsky, “An Interpretation Of The AHP Eigenvector Solution GfK Custom Research North America 8401 Golden Valley Rd ., Minneapolis , MN 55427 , USA 2 . The AHP solution and its interpretation for the maximum eigenvalue λ yields the principal eigenvector α which ser,” vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 158–162, 1936.

[12] T. L. Saaty, “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process,” Int. J. Serv. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, p. 83, 2008.

[13]  a. K. Taslicali and S. Ercan, “The analytic hierarchy & the analytic network processes in multicriteria decision making: A comparative study,” J. Aeronaut. Sp. Technol., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 55–65, 2006.

[14] S. K. Sehra, Y. S. Brar, and N. Kaur, “Multi Criteria Decision Making Approach for Selecting Effort Estimation Model,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 10–17, 2012.

[15] L. Markovic, M. Cvetkovic, and L. Milic-Markovic, “Multi-criteria decision-making when choosing variant solution of highway route at the level of preliminary design,” Facta Univ. - Ser. Archit. Civ. Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 71–87, 2013.

[16] J. Kittur, S. Vijaykumar, V. P. Bellubbi, P. Vishal, and M. G. Shankara, “Comparison of different MCDM techniques used to evaluate optimal generation,” IEEE, no. 1, pp. 172–177, 2016.

[17] O. J. S. Shofade, “Considering hierarchical structure of criteria in ELECTRE decision aiding methods,” Thesis, no. June, p. 114, 2011.

[18] S. Hamali, R. Puji, N. Suci, A. Fitri, and F. Arga, “Using Analytic Hierarchy Process and Decision Tree for a Production Decision Making,” IEEE, pp. 329–332, 2016.

[19] O. Cailloux, P. Meyer, and V. Mousseau, “Eliciting Electre Tri category limits for a group of decision makers,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 223, no. 1, pp. 133–140, 2012.

[20] Akmaludin, M. Badrul, L. Marlinda, S. Dalis, Sidik, and B. Santoso, “The Employee Promotion Base on Specification Job’s Performance Using: MCDM, AHP, and ELECTRE Method,” 2018 6th Int. Conf. Cyber IT Serv. Manag. CITSM 2018, no. CITSM, pp. 7–11, 2019.