AHP-SMART Method as Evaluation Decision Support for Employee Promotion


  • Akmaludin Akmaludin STMIK Nusa Mandiri Jakarta
  • Adhi Dharma Suriyanto Universitas Bina Sarana Informatika, Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Nandang Iriadi Universitas Bina Sarana Informatika, Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Toni Sukendar Universitas Bina Sarana Informatika, Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Budi Santoso Universitas Bina Sarana Informatika




AHP, Benefit Utility, Consistency, Cost Utility, Eigenvector, SMART.


Evaluation of the quality of employees in an institution is very necessary, especially for promotions which are the rights of every employee in leading a company that is full of competition. The purpose of this paper is to contribute in terms of the evaluation process in selecting employees who are ready to be promoted in a particular institution. With the support of various parties, a consistent and optimal method is needed to carry out the evaluation process, which is a popular priority, it is recommended to use the AHP-SMART method, where this method will be collaborated to become a core unit of problem solving, especially in terms of promotion as evaluation and selection material. Selection of the best employees, The AHP method will be used to conduct an assessment of the criteria used with the concept of Multi-criteria Decision Making (MCDM) which utilizes the results obtained from the eigenvector through iteration to minimize differences in the assessments of a number of respondents, while the SMART method is used to determine the results of decisions in collaboration with the AHP method, especially in terms of benefit utility and cost utility. The criteria used as an assessment measure consist of Planning, Solution Capture, Knowledge of Job, Reaction Behavior, Quantity of Works, Failed of Jobs, and Depandibility. The final result of the collaboration process of the two methods AHP and SMART gives a ranking of 26 employees with the highest score and being selected through an evaluation process for promotion won by K23 with a ranking weight (73.19) and the second is followed by K2 (76.17) and ranked the third was won by K3 (56.95). Thus the selection and evaluation process for promotion can be recommended and used as an optimal process from the selection stages of employee selection for promotion in every company agency.

GS Cited Analysis


Download data is not yet available.


Akmaludin, A., Hartati, T., Purwanto, H., & Sukendar, T. (2020). 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. 0–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1477/3/032001

Andani, S. R. (2019). Penerapan Metode SMART dalam Pengambilan Keputusan Penerima Beasiswa Yayasan AMIK Tunas Bangsa. Jurnal Sistem Dan Teknologi Informasi (JUSTIN), 7(3), 166. https://doi.org/10.26418/justin.v7i3.30112

Augustinus & Eric. (2013). Pengelolaan SDM Pada PT. Aneka Sejahtera Engineering. Pengelolaan SDM Pada PT. Aneka Sejahtera Engineering, 1(2). [Diposting pada 13 Mei 2020

Aziz, N. F., Sorooshian, S., & Mahmud, F. (2016). MCDM-AHP method in decision makings. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11(11), 7217–7220. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2013.2297315

Begicevic, N., Divjak, B., & Hunjak, T. (2009). Comparison between AHP and ANP: Case Study of Strategic Planning of E-Learning Implementation. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 1(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v1i1.5

Ghaleb, A. M., Kaid, H., Alsamhan, A., Mian, S. H., & Hidri, L. (2020). Assessment and Comparison of Various MCDM Approaches in the Selection of Manufacturing Process. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4039253

Krmac, E., & Djordjevii, B. (2019). A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for the Evaluation of Train Control Information Systems, the Case of ERTMS. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 18(1), 209–239. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622018500451

Liang, T. C., & Peng, S. H. (2017). Using analytic hierarchy process to examine the success factors of autonomous landscape development in rural communities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050729

Magrisa, T., Wardhani, K. D. K., & Saf, M. R. A. (2018). Implementasi Metode SMART pada Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Kegiatan Ekstrakurikuler untuk Siswa SMA. Informatika Mulawarman : Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Komputer, 13(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.30872/jim.v13i1.648

Saaty, T. L. (2008a). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590

Saaty, T. L. (2008b). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors the analytic hierarchy/network process. Revista de La Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales - Serie A: Matematicas, 102(2), 251–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03191825

Saaty, T. L. (2010). The Eigenvector In Lay Language 2 . What we learn when we have measurement. 2(2), 163–169.

Safrizal, M. (2015). Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Karyawan Teladan dengan Metode SMART (Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique). Jurnal CoreIT, 1(2), 25–29.

The, F. O. R., Person, L. A. Y., & Lipovetsky, S. (1936). 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. 2(2), 158–162.

Vargas, R. V. (2010). Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) To Select And Prioritize Projects In A Portofolio. PMI Global Congress, 32(3), 1–22. http://www.ricardo-vargas.com/pt/articles/analytic-hierarchy-process/#english

Velasquez, M., & Hester, P. (2013). An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2), 56–66.

Yusnitha, K., Tursina, T., & Irwansyah, M. A. (2019). Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Wilayah Prioritas Intervensi Kegiatan Keluarga Berencana dengan Metode AHP-SMART. Jurnal Edukasi Dan Penelitian Informatika (JEPIN), 5(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.26418/jp.v5i1.31338


Crossmark Updates

How to Cite

Akmaludin, A., Suriyanto , A. D. ., Iriadi, N. ., Sukendar, T. ., & Santoso, B. . (2022). AHP-SMART Method as Evaluation Decision Support for Employee Promotion. Sinkron : Jurnal Dan Penelitian Teknik Informatika, 7(2), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.33395/sinkron.v7i1.11228

Most read articles by the same author(s)