Abstract
This research compares two methods of Decision Support System, namely: Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), by taking a case study regarding the tender process of MNC television transmission stations for Denpasar locations. Based on four main criteria, namely: price, quality, service and reliability in determining the winner of the tender followed by three alternative participants (PT. Axx, PT. Nx and PT. Lxx). Sampling in this study uses a purposive sampling or judgment sampling method based on the consideration of the personnel (informants) involved directly or indirectly in the tender process. The final result of the calculation using the AHP method shows that the alternative priorities ranked 1st to 3rd are PT. Axx total value of 0.592, PT. Nx total value of 0.274 and PT. Lxx total value of 0.134. While the calculation using the SAW method obtained an alternative priority ranking 1st to 3rd is PT. Axx total value of 0.95325, PT. Nx total value of 0.92185 and PT. Lxx total value is 0.71585. Quality criteria are the main priority in the selection of vendors, reliability, service and price criteria are the next priorities. The final score results obtained from various calculations are not the same, which indicates that the maturity of the data that is processed to become accurate information is different. The SAW method is more widely used because the calculation process is easier to understand, fast and simple than the AHP method. Whereas AHP is superior in data accuracy, because the value of criteria weights is not arbitrarily determined, but is generated based on calculations.
Highlights
In an effort to increase TV advertising revenue by maintaining the quality and performance of broadcasts to become TV viewers of choice
By finding the mode values in a single data set, so the mode values for each alternative with questions according to the criteria are shown in table 7 below: Table 7
The preference value used by the project procurement team in selecting vendors, namely the ten criteria in the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method (C1 C10) has a weight value that is comparable to the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method (P1, P2, Q1, Q2, Q3, S1, S2, S2, S3, R1 and R2)
Summary
In an effort to increase TV advertising revenue by maintaining the quality and performance of broadcasts to become TV viewers of choice For this reason MNC Media conducted a tender process to determine the winner as a construction project contractor who implemented the 4 tv group integrated transmission station in Denpasar. B. To compile the Decision Support System (DSS) program using the AHP method in assisting the relevant sections in the Integration Transmission Division so that they are not wrong in making decisions in determining the tender winners in accordance with predetermined criteria. C. To compile the DSS program using the SAW method in helping the relevant sections in the Integration Transmission Division so that they are not wrong in making decisions in determining the tender winners in accordance with predetermined criteria. To find out the comparison of DSS between AHP method and SAW method
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Dinasti International Journal of Digital Business Management
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
