Comparative analysis of the sensitivity test of the SAW and WP methods in scholarship selection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35335/cit.Vol15.2023.471.pp84-95Keywords:
Comparison, Multiple Criteria, Scholarship Selection, Sensitivity TestAbstract
Decision-makers frequently use the MADM (Multiple Attribute Decision Making) method to assist in solving decision-making issues. This approach can use a variety of algorithms, including Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and Weighted Product (WP). The challenge in this research is determining which of the SAW and WP approaches is more pertinent or acceptable for solving scenarios involving scholarship recipient selection. Five factors were taken into consideration when deciding who would receive a scholarship: academic achievement index (GPA), parents' income, past accomplishments, participation in student organizations, and the number of parents' dependents. A sensitivity test, which involves altering the weight of each test method's criterion and then comparing the percentage change between the two ways, is one method that can be used to gauge the effectiveness of the MADM method. The SAW method implementation results show that alternative nine (MHS9) has the highest preference value, which is 0.95. The WP method implementation results show that alternative nine (MHS9) has the highest preference value, which is 0.12. The total change in the findings of the sensitivity test for the SAW method is 7.64%, compared to 2.06% for the WP method. Thus, it can be inferred that the SAW approach is thought to be pertinent for addressing the issue of choosing scholarship applicants.
Downloads
References
J. Luo, J. Xu, O. Aldosari, S. A. Althubiti, and W. Deebani, “Design and Implementation of an Efficient Electronic Bank Management Information System Based Data Warehouse and Data Mining Processing,” Inf. Process. Manag., vol. 59, no. 6, p. 103086, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103086.
W. Supriyanti and H. Prihantoro, “Implementasi E-Commerce Sebagai Pemasaran Produk Madu CV. Arba’in Jaya Mandiri,” J. Inf., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 34–40, 2016.
H. Zhang, Z. Zang, H. Zhu, M. I. Uddin, and M. A. Amin, “Big data-assisted social media analytics for business model for business decision making system competitive analysis,” Inf. Process. Manag., vol. 59, no. 1, p. 102762, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102762.
E. Gutierrez-Franco, C. Mejia-Argueta, and L. Rabelo, “Data-driven methodology to support long-lasting logistics and decision making for urban last-mile operations,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 11, p. 6230, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116230.
R. H. Bonczek, C. W. Holsapple, and A. B. Whinston, Foundations of decision support systems. Amerika Serikat: Academic Press, 2014.
M. Matthies, C. Giupponi, and B. Ostendorf, “Environmental decision support systems: Current issues, methods and tools,” Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 22, no. 2. Elsevier, pp. 123–127, 2007, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.09.005.
E. Turban, J. E. Aronson, and T. P. Liang, Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems, 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2005.
A. S. Pullin and T. M. Knight, “Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach,” J. Nat. Conserv., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 83–90, 2003, doi: https://doi.org/10.1078/1617-1381-00040.
S. Kusumadewi, Fuzzy Multi-Atribute Decision Making (Fuzzy MADM). Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu, 2006.
T. L. Saaty, “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,” RACSAM-Revista la Real Acad. Ciencias Exactas, Fis. y Nat. Ser. A. Mat., vol. 102, pp. 251–318, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03191825.
D. A. Anggoro and W. Supriyanti, “Aplikasi Sistem Pendukung Keputusan dengan Metode AHP untuk Pemilihan Siswa Berprestasi di SMAN Kebakkramat,” J. Penelit. dan Pengabdi. Kpd. Masy. UNSIQ, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 163–171, 2019, doi: 10.32699/ppkm.v6i3.777.
W. Supriyanti, “Rancang Bangun Aplikasi Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Penerima Beasiswa dengan Metode SAW,” Creat. Inf. Technol. J., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67–75, 2013, doi: 10.24076/citec.2013v1i1.11.
Y. Pramadana, H. L. Sari, and D. Sartika, “Comparison of SAW and WP Method Through A Sensitivity Test Approach in Employee Performance Assessment at PT. Port of Indonesia II (PERSERO) Bengkulu Branch,” J. Komput. Indones., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 67–72, 2022.
D. Cahyati, H. Juliansa, and R. Yanto, “Perbandingan Metode SAW dan WP pada Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Kegiatan Ekstrakulikuler,” J. Ilm. Bin. STMIK Bina Nusant. Jaya, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 30–38, 2021.
I. Hariyanti and W. Wiguna, “Perbandingan Metode Weighted Product dengan Simple Additive Weighting untuk Evaluasi Kinerja Kasir,” J. RESPONSIF, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33–45, 2019.
S. Amelia and C. Prianto, “Uji Kinerja Metode Weighted Product Dan Simple Additive Weighting Dalam Proses Penentuan Artikel Media Informasi Internal Di PT Pos Indonesia (Persero),” Jutekin J. Tek. Inform., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2019.
D. Fernando and N. Handayani, “Uji Sensitivitas Metode Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Dalam Menentukan Lokasi Penyebaran Media Promosi,” J. Sist. Inf., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 51–57, 2018.
Suyanti and R. Roestam, “Analisis Perbandingan Metode Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) Dan Topsis Dalam Pemilihan Guru Teladan Pada SMA Negeri 4 Sarolangun,” J. Manaj. Sist. Inf., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1208–1225, 2018.
L. Naben, K. Letelay, and E. S. Y. Pandie, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Penentuan Lokasi Lahan Pertanian Untuk Budidaya Tanaman Jeruk Keprok Menggunakan Fuzzy Multi Atribute Decission Making (FMADM) Dan Metode Simple Additive Weighting (SAW),” J-ICON J. Komput. Inform., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 139–144, 2020, doi: 10.35508/jicon.v8i2.2884.
D. A. Effendy and R. H. Irawan, “Uji Sensitivitas Metode WP, SAW Dan TOPSIS Dalam Menentukan Titik Lokasi Repeater Internet Wireless,” Semin. Nas. Teknol. Inf. dan Multimed. STMIK AMIKOM Yogyakarta, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 85–90, 2015.
D. Anisa and Sarjono, “Analisis dan Perancangan Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Seleksi Penerimaan Siswa Baru dengan Metode SAW dan WP Pada MAN 2 Kota Jambi,” J. Manaj. Sist. Inf., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 442–457, 2021.
F. N. Khasanah and D. Setiyadi, “Uji Sensitivitas Metode Simple Additive Weighting dan Weighted Product Dalam Menentukan Laptop,” BINA Insa. ICT J., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 165–174, 2019.
R. A. Sugianto and Z. Situmorang, “Kombinasi Metode Simple Additive Weigthing dan Weigthed Product untuk Seleksi Proposal Program Kreatifitas Mahasiswa,” J. MEDIA Inform. BUDIDARMA, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 564–572, 2021, doi: 10.30865/mib.v5i2.2929.
T. R. Oktariany, Maryaningsih, and A. Sudarsono, “An Analysis of SAW, WP and TOPSIS Methods in Determining The Best Employees at The Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops of Bengkulu Province,” J. Media Comput. Sci., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 267–272, 2022.
G. S. Mahendra and K. Y. E. Aryanto, “SPK Penentuan Lokasi ATM Menggunakan Metode AHP dan SAW,” J. Nas. Teknol. dan Sist. Inf., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 49–56, 2019.
S. Hendartie, “Analisis Perbandingan Metode Saw Dan Topsis Dalam Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Seleksi Calon Dosen STMIK Palangkaraya,” J. SAINTEKOM, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 126–137, 2017.
W. Yusnaeni and R. Ningsih, “Analisa Perbandingan Metode TOPSIS, SAW dan WP Melalui Uji Sensitifitas Supplier Terbaik,” J. Inform., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9–17, 2019.
S. Yunarti and D. Moeis, “Analisis Metode WP dan SAW melalui Uji Sensitivitas untuk Penentuan Penerima Diakonia,” INSECT, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 48–57, 2022.
G. W. Setiawan, J. Wahyudi, and A. Sudarsono, “Analisis Perbandingan Metode SAW dan Metode Topsis Melalui Pendekatan Uji Sensitivitas Penilaian Kinerja Pegawai (Studi Kasus?: Dinas Perhubungan Bengkulu Tengah),” MEANS (Media Inf. Anal. dan Sist., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 169–173, 2021.
S. Suryadi et al., “Uji Sensitivitas Metode Pembobotan ROC, SWARA Terhadap Kriteria Karyawan Terbaik dengan Menggunakan Metode SAW,” J. Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 532–540, 2022, doi: 10.47065/josh.v3i4.1952.
W. R. K. Jayawardani and Maryam, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Seleksi Penerima Program Keluarga Harapan dengan Implementasi Metode SAW dan Pembobotan ROC,” Emit. J. Tek. Elektro, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 99–109, 2022.
G. S. Mahendra and P. G. S. C. Nugraha, “Komparasi Metode AHP-SAW dan AHP-WP pada SPK Penentuan E-Commerce Terbaik di Indonesia,” JUSTIN J. Sist. dan Teknol. Inf., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 346–356, 2020, doi: 10.26418/justin.v8i4.42611.
M. Wati, H. S. Pakpahan, and N. Novirasari, “Comparative Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Student Degree Completion Time based on Entropy Weighted,” in 2018 International Conference on Applied Information Technology and Innovation (ICAITI), 2018, pp. 56–61, doi: 10.1109/ICAITI.2018.8686746.
M. Ahsan and N. Indawati, “Implementation weighted product method to determine multiple intelligence child,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2019, vol. 1375, no. 1, p. 12038, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1375/1/012038.
P. Zhou and B. W. Ang, “Comparing MCDA aggregation methods in constructing composite indicators using the Shannon-Spearman measure,” Soc. Indic. Res., vol. 94, pp. 83–96, 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9338-0.
D. Y. H. Tanjung and R. Adawiyah, “Optimizing selection of decision support system with fuzzy simple additive weighting,” in 2018 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM), 2018, pp. 1–4, doi: 10.1109/CITSM.2018.8674360.
S.-Y. Chou, Y.-H. Chang, and C.-Y. Shen, “A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 189, no. 1, pp. 132–145, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.006.
P. Kaur and S. Kumar, “An intuitionistic fuzzy simple Additive weighting (IFSAW) method for selection of vendor,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Electronic Business, Xi’an, China, October 12-16, 2012, 2012, pp. 31–35, [Online]. Available: https://aisel.aisnet.org/iceb2012/1/.
K. Piasecki, E. Roszkowska, and A. ?yczkowska-Han?kowiak, “Simple additive weighting method equipped with fuzzy ranking of evaluated alternatives,” Symmetry (Basel)., vol. 11, no. 4, p. 482, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11040482.
C. Yeh, “A problem?based selection of multi?attribute decision?making methods,” Int. Trans. Oper. Res., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 169–181, 2002, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-3995.00348.
C. Kahraman, “Multi-criteria decision making methods and fuzzy sets,” Fuzzy multi-criteria Decis. Mak. Theory Appl. with Recent Dev., pp. 1–18, 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76813-7_1.
H. Christopher Frey and S. R. Patil, “Identification and review of sensitivity analysis methods,” Risk Anal., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 553–578, 2002, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00039.
A. Mahmoudi, S. A. Javed, S. Liu, and X. Deng, “Distinguishing coefficient driven sensitivity analysis of GRA model for intelligent decisions: application in project management,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 621–641, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.11890.
D. M. Hamby, “A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models,” Environ. Monit. Assess., vol. 32, pp. 135–154, 1994, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00547132.
D. M. Hamby, “A comparison of sensitivity analysis techniques,” Health Phys., vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 195–204, 1995, [Online]. Available: https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/1995/02000/A_Comparison_of_Sensitivity_Analysis_Techniques.5.aspx.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Wiwit Supriyanti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
