Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 449 Download : 383

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Competition in service quality between companies requires companies to make improvements and improve the quality of Human Resources continuously. BPR Inti Dana Sentosa always strives to improve internal quality on a regular and ongoing basis by evaluating the human resources involved in the production process. HR assessment is still done by a manual method so that the process becomes very slow, and the results obtained are not accurate, even it seems subjective. While objectivity is needed to support the right decision to employ useful human resources for an extended period. This study aims to assist BPR Inti Dana Sentosa in deciding on employee assessment results by implementing the Simple Additive Weighting method. Based on nine processed employee sample data, it founded that the employee with the code 'Employee 2' was the best employee candidate. This result proves that the SAW method can help the decision-making process in the problem of determining the best employee of a company.

Keywords

BPR Inti Dana Sentosa Pengambilan Keputusan Simple Additive Weighting

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. T. B. Sunardi and D. Kriestanto, “Perbandingan AHP Dan SAW Untuk Pemilihan Pegawai Terbaik (Studi Kasus: STMIK Akakom Yogyakarta),” in Seminar Riset Teknologi Informasi (SRITI), 2016, pp. 274–282.
  2. M. F. Penta, F. B. Siahaan, and S. H. Sukmana, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Pemilihan Karyawan Terbaik Menggunakan Metode SAW pada PT . Kujang Sakti Anugrah,” J. Sci. Appl. Informatics, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 185–192, 2019.
  3. E. Ismanto, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Penerimaan Karyawan Dengan Metode Simple SATIN – Sains dan Teknologi Informasi Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Penerimaan Karyawan Dengan Metode Simple Additive Weighting ( SAW ),” Sains Teknol. Inf., vol. 03, no. 01, pp. 1–8, 2017.
  4. C. M. Brugha, “Structure of multi-criteria decision-making,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 1156–1168, 2004, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601777.
  5. G. Yanti, K. Sari, S. Pahu, L. R. Putri, and R. Renaldo, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Menentukan Calon Penerima Raskin Menggunakan Metode Simple Additive Weighting,” vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 82–86, 2018.
  6. B. Ceballos, M. T. Lamata, and D. A. Pelta, “A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods,” Prog. Artif. Intell., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 315–322, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s13748-016-0093-1.
  7. P. C. Fishburn, “Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Sets: Application to Priorities and Assignments,” Oper. Res., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 537–542, 1967, doi: 10.1287/opre.15.3.537.
  8. S. Zahir, “Aggregation of Priorities in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): Connecting Decision Spaces in the Cognitive Space,” no. July, pp. 317–333, 2016.
  9. M. Parida, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Penentuan Penilaian Karyawan Berprestasi Menggunakan Metode SAW Dan AHP,” in Seminar Nasional IIB Darmajaya, 2017, pp. 472–490.