DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM OF SELECTION OF PRIVATE

HIGHER EDUCATION HELD INFORMATICS ENGINEERING

STUDY PROGRAM IN PROVINCE OF JAKARTA USING AHP AND
PROMETHEE METHOD
1
SULARSO BUDILAKSONO, 2SUWARNO, 3AGUS HERWANTO
1,2,3
Lecturer, Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Persada Indonesia YAI, Indonesia
E-mail: 1sularso2007@gmail.com, ,2ano@yai.ac.id, 3aerwanto@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to develop a method System Decision Support Electoral Private Higher Education
which organizes courses Information Engineering underBachelor level based on the weighting of the selection
criteria and with due regard to the types of decisions from each sub-criteria, using Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) method of decision-making preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation
(PROMETHEE). Criteria for Selection of Private Higher Education organizes study programs in informatics at
DKI Jakarta using seven criteria: Cost Components, Campus Locations, Achievement of Students and Lecturers,
IT Infrastructure, Information and Accreditation of Academic Curricula and Lecture time. In total there are 26
sub-criteria and four alternatives. Based on the method Promethee II by calculating Net Flow obtained sequence
Private Private Higher Education became the first alternative by stuffing the respondent is "Private Higher
Education which organizes courses Informatics Engineering underBachelor level with accreditation B and
donation fee over 10 million may be paid by the system of cash"

Keywords: Selection of Private Higher Education, Informatics Engineering AHP, Promethee, Net flow
.
Keywords: Selection of Private Higher Education, Information Technology, AHP, Promethee, Net flow

1. INTRODUCTION The research model using AHP and Promethee

The process of selecting Colleges for
students and prospective students and
parents is a complicated process. Selection
criteria and sub-criteria that determine the
consideration should they choose, and
perhaps they will make mistakes in the
selection of private universities in the end
make them regret and bothersome to them.
To obtain information quickly and
accurately will be the selection of the right
of private universities, needed an
automation process by using technology.
Therefore, it needs a system of computer-
based decision support is considered very
necessary to meet the criteria of the
selection Colleges in DKI Jakarta
province.
so that decision-making structures and the
questionnaire respondents and targets designed to
match the needs of the method of AHP and
Promethee. Both methods are combined to
produce the maximum decision but the decision
depends on the results of the questionnaire
relative respondents. Respondents of the study
include: High school students and vocational
selected as a sample for preliminary research,
Chairman of the Program of several Colleges
around the city to review the AHP model
developed and the students as well as parents
who never send their children to universities.
AHP is one of multivariate optimization
decision-making techniques used in policy
analysis. In essence AHP is a decision making
method which comprehensively taking into
account the things that are qualitative and

1
quantitative. In a decision-making model with (a1) (a1) (a1) (a1)
AHP basically trying to cover all the
shortcomings of previous models. AHP also f1 f2 Fj Fk
allows the formation of the structure of a system a2 ... ...
and environment into components interact with (a2) (a2) (a2) (a2)
each other and then unite them with measure and
regulate the effects of the components of a .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
system error (Saaty, 1980).

Promethee is one of several methods of
determining the order or priority in multicriteria
analysis. This method is known as an efficient
and simple method, but also are easy to
implement compared to other methods to solve
the problem of multiple criteria. This method is
able to accommodate the selection criteria are
quantitative and qualitative. The main problem is
its simplicity, clarity and stability. The
allegations of the dominance of the criteria used
in Promethee is the use value of the outranking
relationship. The problem with multiple criteria
decision making can be written as follows
(Hunjak, 1997) :
Max{f1(a),f2(a),,fk(a) : a A .. (1) or in other words produced only partial solutions
...............
.......... (1)
If A is a set of alternative options that might
happen, f1, f2, ..., fk are the criteria which have
been evaluated previously. If all the criteria have
not the same degree of importance, the weighting
can be characterized by w1, w2, ..., wk. The
basic data for evaluation by the method
Promethee presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Data Evaluation
f1(.) f2(.) fj(.)
w1 w2 ... wj ... wk on the method of MCDM (Multi Criteria
a1 f1 f2 ... Fj ... Fk preference ratings of prospective students. The
f1 f2 Fj Fk
ai ... ...
(ai) (ai) (ai) (ai)
f1 f2 Fj Fk
an ... ...
(an) (an) (an) (an)
Promethee I was ranked most of which the
largest value in leaving flow and the small value
of the entering flow is the best alternative. I
Promethee featuring partial rank (PI, II, RI) by
considering the intersection of the two preorder.
Partial ranking addressed to decision makers, to
assist decision-making problems that it faces. By
using Promethee I still leaves incomparible form
rank (in part). If the decision makers want a
complete solution it should use PROMETHEE II
[2].
In the case of complete rankings in K is the
avoidance of forms incomparible, Promethee II
complete preorder (PII, III) are presented in the
form of net flow. Through the complete
rankings, information for decision makers is
more realistic because it can make a comparison
against all alternat if that appears (Hunjak, 1997)
This study was developed based on the problems
mentioned above. The first step is to formulate a
model of decision-making for the selection of
fk(.) PTS that provide education S1 Informatics
Engineering. The model was developed based
Decission Making) based on a person's
model was developed with the structure of AHP
AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) because it

2
is expected to be used to solve complex
problems, with aspects or criteria considered
quite a lot.
2.METHOD
The research method developed is a research
development of decision support systems with
multi-criteria with AHP and PROMETHEE. The
output of this research is to develop models and
decision-making applications Selection of
Private Colleges held a Bachelor of Engineering
Informatics study program in DKI Jakarta. The
number of respondents who were asked to
perform as many as 40 respondents filling out
the questionnaire. They were divided into two
groups: a group of students and parents. The
number of respondents were 35 student groups
and the number of respondents parents are as
many as five people. Parents should be involved
as parents reserve the experience of
accompanying her choose Colleges and
participate in the process of new admissions.
The number of respondents whose education
from Senior High School there are as many as
10 people, the education of Madrasah Aliyah
there were 2 people and the rest of the
respondents of Vocational High School. The
sum of men are as many as 38 people and 2
people are the respondents with the female
gender. The number of respondents to the age of
30 years there were 9 people and the rest were
aged under 30 years old are as many as 31
people.
3.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on feedback questionnaires from
prospective new students, at the level of the
criteria, the model comprises several criteria:
Cost Components, Campus Locations,
Achievement of students and lecturers, IT
infrastructure, Information about Academic and
accreditation, curriculum and Lecture time.
These factors into consideration prospective
students and parents to choose a Private Higher
3
Education. This is the main factors that are
frequently asked by students. Perhaps there are
other factors to be considered by prospective
students, but is not included in the model
because it would make the model into complex
models and questionnaires to be very long.
Sub-criteria were developed based on factors are
explored and obtained that usually occurs in
many Colleges. Sub criteria across Colleges can
vary however been sub-criteria that are
common. Although this criterion factor in many
Colleges but still consider the views of
prospective new students in considering these
criteria.
Sub-criteria decision support electoral Colleges
that organizes underBachelor study program
Informatics Engineering are as follows:
1. Sub criteria of Component Cost: TheDonation
Fee and Tuition Fee paid in cash, Donation Fee
and Tuition Fees paid installment, Only from
Tuition fees that can be paid in cash, just
Tuition fees that can be paid in installments,
2. Sub criteria of Campus Locations: 1 strategic
campus locations ,; strategic but many scattered
locations, one campus location is not strategic;
not strategic but many locations.
3. Sub criteria of Achievement Students and
lecturers: minimal achievement, achievement at
the provincial level, the achievements at the
national level, the achievements at the
international level
4. Sub criteria of the IT Infrastructure: desktop-
based application, web application, web-based
applications and android.
5. Sub criteria of Information on Academic and
accreditation: a complete, detailed and clear, less
complete, there is no information.
6. Sub criteria of the curriculum: the standard
course, contains a lot of specialization,
containing the certification of products, there is
an apprenticeship program
7. Sub criteria in college: a morning lecture
course, any time night classes, morning and
evening lecture time, weekends lecture time
(Friday and Saturday)

Figure 2. Weight criteria against Destinations.

Once the input data for AHP

questionnaires processed, the next step is
to process the data from the questionnaires
Promethee. The entire questionnaire of
sub-criteria inputted and calculated the
average value of the alternative sub-
Figure 1. Structure of AHP developed. criteria. Table 2 shows the average value
of each sub-criteria and the determination
The third level of the decision tree is an of optimization functions. Sub-criteria with
alternative. Developed alternative is the category labels F18 and f20 have the same value so
of accreditation PTS with information regarding it does not provide a significant difference
the cost to enter a new student in Colleges. to the alternative weights. Determining the
Developed alternative options are: type of criteria and parameters is done by
1. PHE held a Bachelor of Engineering considering the type of decisions taken and
Informatics study program with accreditation also consider input from respondents.
level A and Donations Fee above 20 million.
Recapitulation of determining the type of
2. PHE held a Bachelor of Engineering
preference and current parameter values
Informatics study programs with the
Accreditation level B and Donation Fee over 10 for the sub-criteria and alternatives can be
million and paid cash. seen in Table 3.
3. PHE held a Bachelor of Engineering Positive outranking flow (leaving flow) is
Informatics study programs with the an alternative flow coming from one
Accreditation level B and Donation Fee under 10 alternative to get to the other alternatives.
million and can be paid installment. Examples of leaving flow of alternative A1
4. PHE held a Bachelor of Engineering is all streams of alternative A1 leading to a
Informatics study program with accreditation variety of alternative A2, A3 and A4.
level C and Donation Fee under 10 million. Instead negative outranking flow (entering
flow) is all the flow of data from a variety
Based on input from the respondent data on
Expert Choice software shown in Figure 2 the
results of the calculation of weighted criteria
respect to the objectives. Criteria that have the
greatest weight is on the criteria of the IT
Infrastructure (0.195), the criteria of the
Academic Information and Accreditation (0.186)
and criteria Curriculum (0.162). Due to the
inconsistency ratios below 0.1, the calculations
are acceptable. Based on this output criteria has
the largest contribution to the achievement of the
goals are the criteria of the IT Infrastructure with
0.195 weights and criteria that have the smallest
contribution is the criterion of Campus Locations
weighs 0.086.
4
Table 2. Weights sub-criteria and the average value of each sub krtieria questionnaire of
alternatives.
CRITERIA SUB CRITERIA Funtion min/max A1 A2 A3 A4

Donnation Fee and Tuition Fee pain in cash f1(.) min 3 3 3,8 2,6

Fee Componen Donnation Fee and Tuition Fee paid installment f2(.) min 3,8 3,2 3,8 3,0

Tuition Fee paid in cash f3(.) min 3,4 3,6 3,6 2,8

Tuition Fee paid in installment f4(.) min 4 4 4,6 3,6

1 strategic campus locations f5(.) max 3,8 3,8 4,2 3,2

S strategic but many scattered locations f6(.) max 4,2 3,6 4,4 3,2

Campus Location one campus location is not strategic f7(.) max 3 3 3,6 3,2

not strategic but many locations f8(.) max 3,6 2,8 3,8 2,8

minimal achievement stasi f9(.) max 2,6 2,6 3,4 3,0

Students and Lecturers
Achievement achievement at the provincial level f10(.) max 3,6 3 4 3,2

achievement at the Nasional level f11(.) max 4,6 3,8 4,6 4,4

achievement at the International level f12(.) max 4,4 4,4 4,8 4,4

Desktop application only f13(.) max 3 3 3,4 3,2

IT Infrastructure Web-based application f14(.) max 3,8 3,8 4 3,6

Web-based and android-based application f15(.) max 4,4 4 4,6 4,0

Detailed and clearly f16(.) max 4,2 4 4,2 3,6

Academic and
Accreditation
Information Not detailed and less complete f17(.) max 3 3,4 3,2 2,8

No Information f18(.) max 2 2 2 2,0

Standard course f19(.) max 3 3,2 3,4 3,4

Curricula contains a lot of specialization f20(.) max 4 4 4 4,0

contains a lot of product sertification f21(.) max 4,4 4,2 4,2 4,0

Contains internship programme f22(.) max 4,4 4,2 4,2 4,0

Morning classes f23(.) max 3,2 3,6 3,2 3,4

Evening classes f24(.) max 2,8 3 3,2 3,2

Lecture Time Moring and Evening classes f25(.) max 4,2 4 4,2 3,8

Weekend classes f26(.) max 3,2 3,2 3 3,4

and negative outranking flow (entering

of alternatives to get to a particular flow) can be seen in Table 4Based on the
alternative. Examples of negative calculation of flow leaving and entering
outranking flow (entering flow) the flow, then the next step is the
Alternative A1 is all the flow of data from preparation of ranking on PROMETHEE I.
a variety of alternatives that points to the An alternative is said to have rank (order)
node A1. The result of the calculation of is highest when lea ving flow value is
positive outranking flow (leaving flow) larger than the other alternatives and value
flow entering its smaller compared to other
alternatives. For example, leaving flow A1
= 0.5466213, 0.5663156 = A2, A3 = A4 =
0.5909327 and 0.7324151, so the flow

5
leaving the highest value is A4, A3, A2
and the latter is A1.
Figure 3. Sequence alternative based on
the value of the largest Flow Leaving
Alternatives node can also be sorted
partially based on the sequence of the
smallest of entering flow. As an example
for entering an alternative flow A1 =
0.5465, 0.5543 = A2, A3 = A4 = 0.587153
and 0.748381. The rank ordering of
vertices alternatives based on the smallest
value of the entering flow is A1, A2, A3
and A4. So Leaving Flow sorted by largest
amount Preferences Index, while Entering
Flow sorted berdaarkan smallest amount
Preferences Index.
Figure 4. Sequence alternative based on
the value of the smallest Entering Flow
I PROMETHEE calculation results for all
generate alternative forms of relationship
between each of the alternatives can be
seen in Table 5. The depiction of the
relationship PROMETHEE I results based
on the flow leaving and entering flow to all
alternatives can be seen in Table 5. In the
table shows that there is a sequence of
alternatives which can not be compared
(incomparable), ie between alternative A1
to A2, A1 to A3, A1 to A4, A2 to A3, A2
to A4 and the A3 with A4, therefore need
to proceed with the calculation of
PROMETHEE II.
6
Examples of relationships preference by
leaving flow and entering Flow for the
sub-criteria "PHE which organizes
Bachelor of Engineering Informatics has
Accreditation level A with the Donation
Fee of over 20 million" (A1) and "PHE
which organizes Bachelor of Informatics
Engineering Accreditation level A with
Donation Fee in over 10 million "(A2).
Because the calculation PROMETHEE I
alternate sequence for alternative category
is not obtained, then continued on
PROMETHEE II. The depiction of the
sequence relation to alternative category is
based on the composition of the ranking
taking into account the value of Net flow
(ie Leaving Entering Flow-Flow).
The calculation of net flow obtained from
the reduction of the flow leaving the flow
entering. Prices leaving flow and leaving
the flow can be seen from Table 4,
whereas the net flow calculation results
can be seen in Table 5.
Table 5 shows the sequence of alternatives
to PTS category which organizes courses
S1 Informatics Engineering. From Table 5
it can be concluded that the order of
priority PTS category are: the sequence is
as follows:
1. PHE which organizes study programs
accredited Bachelor of Engineering
Informatics with accreditation level B and
Donation Fee over 10 million may be paid
by cash system (A2)
2. PHE which organizes study programs
Bachelor of Engineering Informatics with
accreditation level B and Donation Fee
below 10 million may be paid by
installment system (A3)
 Table 3. Calculation Leaving and Entering Flow.
Leaving Tabel 4. Calculation and
Alternatives A1 A2 A3 A4
2.
total Flow
ranked based Net Flow
A1 0,000000 0,456712 0,414413 0,768739 1,639864 0,5466213
Alternatives Net Flow Rank
A2 0,488777 0,000000 0,56638 0,64379 1,698947 0,5663156
A1 0,000148 3
A3 0,381905 0,558280 0,0000 0,832613 1,772798 0,5909327
A2 0,012038 1
A4 0,768739 0,647840 0,780665 0,0000 2,197245 0,7324151
A3 0,00378 2
total 1,639421 1,662832 1,761458 2,245143
Entering A4 -0,01597 4
Flow 0,546474 0,554277 0,587153 0,748381 .

3. PHE which organizes study programs
Bachelor of Engineering Informatics with
accreditation level A and Donation Fee
over 20 million can be paid with cash
system (A1)
4. PHE which organizes study programs
Bachelor of Engineering Informatics with
accreditation level C and Donation Fee
below 10 million (A4)
Ranking of using a combination of AHP
and Promethee I and refined by the method
Promethee II to produce alternative
sequence A2, A3, A1 and A2. Meanwhile
perangkingan by simply using AHP just
like showing a sequence of ranking the
alternatives are A3, A2, A1 and A4. Thus
there was a slight difference between the
sequence of AHP method only with AHP
and Promethee.
Figure 5. The order of alternatives based
on the largest value Net Flow
4.CONCLUSION
1. Decision-Making Model developed
for PHE election Bachelor Informatics
7
Engineering study program with AHP and
Promethee consists of goals, 7 criteria, 26
sub criteria and the four alternatives.
2. Processing of data from the
questionnaire respondents with AHP
method produces global weighting for each
sub-criteria and serve as inputs to methods
Promethee.
3. Based on the method of calculating the
Promethee II with Flow Net acquired PHE
is an alternative sequence by stuffing the
respondents were as follows:
a. PHE which organizes study programs
Bachelor Informatics Engineering with
accreditation level B and Donation Fee
above 10 million can be paid with cash
system. (Alternative A2)
b. PHE which organizes study programs
Bachelor Informatics Engineering with
accreditation level B and Donation Fee
below 10 million may be paid by
installment system (alternative A3)
c. PHE which organizes study programs
Bachelor Informatics Engineering with
accreditation level A and Donation Fee
above 20 million can be paid with cash
system (alternative A1)
d. PHE which organizes study programs
Bachelor Informatics Engineering with
accreditation level C and Donation Fee
below 10 million (alternate A4)
REFRENCES:

[1] Saaty, T. L., 1980. The Analytical

Hierarchy Process: Planning,
Priority Setting, Resource
Allocation, McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
[2] Nurtjahyo, M., Sunaryo, B. dan
Rosita M. J., 2003. Penentuan
Sistem pemilihanPTS Sebagai
Bagian dari Implementasi Supply
Chain Management dengan
Metode Analytical Hierarchy
Process, Jurnal Teknologi, Edisi
Khusus No. 2, Teknik Industri,
Tahun XVII Desember.
[3] Brans, J.P., dan Mareschal, B.,
How to Decide with
PROMETHEE, [Online].
Available: http://visualdecision.com
[2005, April 17].

[4]. Rahyono W, Yoyon. Aplikasi Sistem

Pendukung Keputusan untuk
Menentukan Jurusan pada SMU
menggunakan metode KNN (K-
Nearest Neighbor). <URL:
http://www.slideshare.net/youngyon/p
rogres-penjurusan-smu-
presentation.ppt> Diakses pada 28
Maret 2010
[5]. Latief, M. 2006. Perancangan dan
Pembuatan Perangkat Lunak SPK
Seleksi Pemohon Beasiswa dengan
Pendekatan metode AHP. Bangkalan:
Universitas Trunojoyo
[6]. Santosa, Budi. 2007. Data Mining
Teknik Pemanfaatan Data untuk
Keperluan Bisnis. Yogyakarta: Graha
Ilmu.