Multi-criteria for Selection of SmartPhone Brands Product using AHP-TOPSIS Method

Main Article Content

Akmaludin Akmaludin Mohammad Badrul

Abstract

Today's communication is very important to do, this can be done by using communication tools that are currently being used by everyone, none other than SmartPhone, so people are competing to get it. Many found difficulties in choosing a SmartPhone Brand Product that suits the wishes of each user from a number of alternatives such as Advance, Xiaomi, OPPO, SAMSUNG, and VIVO, because many criteria must be considered such as memory capacity, battery durability, sharpness of capture camera, the form of design producy, the number of features produced from the product, which is equally important is the overall performance of the product. This difficulty is a general matter discussed by each user, because it requires the best solution that can be used to solve the problem. One method that can be used to select the right SmartPhone is the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method combined with the TOPSIS method. In this case AHP is used to determine the preference quantity in weighting and TOPSIS is used for mathematical detailed calculations of a number of criteria specified in ranking from a number of alternatives. The results obtained based on the mathematical calculation process are the first rank brand products with the highest weight of 0.597 from SAMSUNG, followed by a weight of 0.586 from OPPO, then weighing 0.555 from Advance, then weighing 0.511 from VIVO, and the smallest weight 0.491 from Xiaomi.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
AKMALUDIN, Akmaludin; BADRUL, Mohammad. Multi-criteria for Selection of SmartPhone Brands Product using AHP-TOPSIS Method. SinkrOn, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 2, p. 154-160, mar. 2019. ISSN 2541-2019. Available at: <http://jurnal.polgan.ac.id/index.php/sinkron/article/view/10069>. Date accessed: 22 may 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.33395/sinkron.v3i2.10069.
Section
Articles
**************** Abstract viewed = 31 times ****************

References

[1] A. Erbasi and R. Parlakkaya, “The use of Analytic Hieararchy Process inthe balanced scorecard: an approach in a Hotel Firm,” Bus. Manag. Rev., vol. 2(2), no. 2, pp. 23–37, 2012.

[2] Thomas L. Saaty, “How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 48. pp. 9–26, 1990.

[3] Akmaludin, “Teknik Penyeleksian Keputusan Menggunakan Analytic Hierarchy Process,” J. Pilar Nusa Mandiri, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 102–111, 2015.

[4] Akmaludin, “Multicriteria Analysis Menentukan Point Weight Comparison Dalam Penetapan Decision Priority,” J. Pilar Nusa Mandiri, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 11–19, 2015.

[5] A. Akmaludin and M. Badrul, “Comparison Ranking Aplikasi Animasi Berbasis Pembelajaran dengan Metode Promethee,” J. Bina Insa., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2018.

[6] A. Ishizaka and A. Labib, “Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process,” Pre Print Vertion, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 14336–14345, 2011.

[7] 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.

[8] S. Aouadni, A. Rebai, and Z. Turskis, “The Meaningful Mixed Data TOPSIS (TOPSIS-MMD) Method and its application in supplier selection,” Stud. Informatics Control, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 353–363, 2017.

[9] K. Savitha and C. Chandrasekar, “Trusted Network Selection using SAW and TOPSIS Algorithms for Heterogeneous Wireless Networks,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 22–29, 2011.
[10] S. Opricovic and G. H. Tzeng, “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 156, no. 2, pp. 445–455, 2004.

[11] V. S Nmamit, S. Aithal, and S. G, “Integrating TOPSIS and AHP into GORE Decision Support System,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., vol. 56, no. 17, pp. 46–53, 2012.

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