Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313316006

Implementation of Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality (ELECTRE)


Method in Selecting the Best Lecturer (Case Study STMIK BUDI DARMA)

Article · February 2017

CITATIONS

28

4 authors:

Mesran Aan Garuda Ginting


STMIK Budi Darma STMIK Budi Darma Medan
39 PUBLICATIONS   92 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Robbi Rahim Suginam Gienam


Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Manajemen Sukma, Medan, Indonesia STMIK Budi Darma
178 PUBLICATIONS   657 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Now Working on Voice Recognition Application and Security View project

Decision Support Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robbi Rahim on 04 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 6 Issue 02, February-2017

Implementation of Elimination and Choice


Expressing Reality (ELECTRE) Method in
Selecting the Best Lecturer (Case Study STMIK
BUDI DARMA)
Mesran1 Garuda Ginting 2
Department Computer Engineering, Dosen Tetap STMIK Budi Darma Medan
STMIK Budi Darma Medan, Jln. Sisingamangaraja No. 338 Telp 061-7875998,
Jln. Sisingamangaraja No. 338 Telp 061-7875998,

Suginam3 Robbi Rahim4


Department Computer Engineering, Departement of Computer Engineering
STMIK Budi Darma Medan, Medan Institute of Technology
Jln. Sisingamangaraja No. 338 Telp 061-7875998, Jl. Gedung Arca No.52 Kota Medan, Sumatera Utara,

Abstract— Measurement of the performance index lecturer at II. THEORY


a college should be obliged to do. Performance indexes the basis A. Lecturer
for university lecturer in determining the best lecturer owned Under Law 14, 2015, which referred to the lecturers are
by the university. The right solution to the problems faced by professional educators and scientists with the primary task
university leaders as a decision maker to consider several
of transforming, developing and disseminating science,
criteria relating to the determination of the best computer
lecturer, in this case the determination of best computer technology, and the arts through education, research, and
lecturer using ELECTRE method community service [7].

Keywords— Decision making, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, B. Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality (ELECTRE)
Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Best Lecturer, ELECTRE ELECTRE methods introduced by Roy (1966), which uses
a comprehensive evaluation approach by trying to create a
I. INTRODUCTION ranking of the number of each alternative described on some
The lecturer is the one resource that must have either PTN criteria [8].
or PTS. Lecturers who have a good performance will
improve the quality of universities. For faculty performance The steps of the method ELECTRE can see as below [6] [9]
can be enhanced, it is no doubt anymore that universities [10]:
must be able to assess the extent to which performance of
the lecturers, so they know the performance generated by Step 1: Preparing for Decision Matrix
faculty lecturer at the college. For lecturers who earn top In the column, there is a decision matrix criteria (n) and the
performance ratings. Certainly, the senior lecturers are the row in the form of alternative (m). The initial stage and the
best that have high ratings on performance base for processing to decision support
accomplishments. In conducting the selection of best
 x11 x12 x13 ... x1n 
lecturers can use decision support system, which has many x x 21 x 22 ... x 2 n  (1)
methods that can apply to Weight Product (WP), Analytics x ij   21
 . . . ... . 
Hierarchy Process (AHP), Simple Addictive Weighting  
(SAW) and some other methods [1] [2]. Decision support  x m1 xm2 x m3 ... x mn 

systems should have some alternative, criteria, and Step 2: Normalizing the Decision Matrix
weighting that is a crucial factor in the decision support Decision matrix will be normalized by using the following
system [1] [3] [4]. formula and produces the normalized model.
xij
rij  i=1,2,…,m (2)
Based on the above, this research is to apply the method m

Elimination and Choice expressing Reality (ELECTRE) in x


i 1
2
ij j=1,2,…,n
making decisions for determining best computer lecturer of
STMIK Budi Darma with the criteria used, ie rank (C1),
research (C2), scientific publications (C3) , dedication (C4),
supporting element (C5). Another variant of the ELECTRE
approach is TOPSIS method [5] [6].

IJERTV6IS020074 www.ijert.org 141


(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 6 Issue 02, February-2017

For cost parameters using the following equation. max{| vkj  vlj |} jDkl
d kl  (11)
1 max{| vkj  vlj |} j
rij d matrix is also a dimension of m x m and did not take the
rij 
m 1
2
i=1,2,…,m (3) value of the l column and k row, d array as below.
  r 

i 1  ij 
j=1,2,…,n   d12 ... d1n 
d  ... d 2 n 
The results of processing the normalized decision matrix, as d   21 (12)
 . .  . 
shown below.  
d m1 d m2 ...  
 r11 r12 r13 r1n 
...
Step 6: Determine the dominant concordance matrix and
r r21 r22... r2n 
rij   21  (4) discordance
 . . . ... .  This array could construct with the aid of a threshold value
  (threshold) c. The formula can obtain c value.
 m1 m2
r r rm3 ... rmn 
m m
Step 3: Giving weight value
Furthermore, decision makers provide interest factor  c kl
(13)
c k 1 l 1
(weight) on each of the criteria which express its relative  m(m  1)
importance (wj).
The alternative Ak can have the opportunity to dominance
W= (w1, w2, ... , wn) ; A1 if the concordance index ckl exceed the threshold c with
n ckl ≥ c and elements of the dominant F concordance matrix
w
j 1
j 1 defined as:
(5)
1
f kl   , if ckl ≥ c
Step 4: Calculate the normalized weighted matrix 0 , if ckl < c (14)
Each column of the r matrix multiplied by the weights (wj)
determined by the decision maker, can be seen below. The same also applies to the dominant discordance matrix G
with threshold d. The following formula can obtain d value:
vij  w j .rij (6) m m

 d kl
(15)
Where v is d k 1 l 1
 m(m  1)
 v11 v12 ... v1n 
v v 22 ... v 2 n  The elements of the dominant F discordance matrix defined
vij   21 (7)
 . . . .  as:
 
v m1 vm 2 ... v mn 
1
Step 5: Determining the set of concordance and discordance g kl   , if dkl ≥ d
0 , if dkl < d (16)
index
The set of concordance index {ckl} indicates where the sum Step 7: Determining aggregate dominance matrix
of weighted criteria Ak alternatively is better than the The model e as total dominance matrix is a matrix which
alternative A1. each element is the multiplication between the matrix
elements f, and g corresponding form elements.
Ckl={j|vkj ≥vlj} with j=1,2,..,n (8)
ekl=fkl x gkl (17)
The set of discordance index {dkl} given as follows:
Step 8: Elimination of the less favorable alternative
Dkl={j|vkj<vlj} with j=1,2,..,n (9) The matrix e gives the preferred order of each option, ie
when ekl = 1 then the alternative is Ak better alternative than
Step 5: Calculating concordance and discordance matrix the A1. That the rows in a matrix e which has a total of at
To calculate or determine the value of the elements in the least ekl = 1 can be eliminated.
concordance model is by adding weights are included in the
set of concordance III. RESULT & DISCUSSION
ckl   wj
jCkl
(10)
The initial step to find the best lectures which provide 5
criteria and three alternatives. The criteria and the weights
show in Table I and choices could see in Table II.
To determine the value of the elements in the discordance
matrix is by dividing the maximum difference of criteria
including into subsets discordance with the highest
difference between the value of all existing criteria

IJERTV6IS020074 www.ijert.org 142


(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 6 Issue 02, February-2017

Table I. The Criteria and Weights k=2 i=1 c21


Criteria (C) Weights(W) j=1 if v21 ≥ v11 ≈ 0.1485 ≥ 0.1980 no
Rank (C1) 0.35 j=2 if v22 ≥ v12 ≈ 0.0739 ≥ 0.0923 no
Research (C2) 0.15
Scientific Publications (C3) 0.2
j=3 if v23 ≥ v13 ≈ 0.1193 ≥ 0.1491 no
Dedication (C4) 0.2 j=4 if v24 ≥ v14 ≈ 0.0970 ≥ 0.1455 no
Supporting Element (C5) 0.1 j=5 if v25 ≥ v15 ≈ 0.0667 ≥ 0.0667 yes then j=5
c21={5}
Table II. Alternative of Lecturer
Name of Lecturer C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 i=2 c22 = identity j=1,2,3,4,5
(A) 5 3 4 4 2 i=3 c23
A1 4 5 5 3 4 j=1 if v21 ≥ v31 ≈ 0.1485 ≥ 0.2475 no
A2 3 4 4 2 4
A3 5 5 2 2 2
j=2 if v22 ≥ v32 ≈ 0.0739 ≥ 0.0923 no
By using equation (2), then in the process of normalization j=3 if v23 ≥ v33 ≈ 0.1193 ≥ 0.0596 yes then j=3
matrix. j=4 if v24 ≥ v34 ≈ 0.0970 ≥ 0.0970 yes then j=4
j=5 if v25 ≥ v35 ≈ 0.0667 ≥ 0.0333 yes then j=5
x1  4 2  32  52  7.7011
c23={3,4,5}
x2  52  42  52  8.1240
x11 4 x 5
r11    0.5657 r12  12   0.6155 k=3 i=1 c31
x1 7.7011 x2 8.1240
x 3 x 4 j=1 if v31 ≥ v11 ≈ 0.2475 ≥ 0.1980 yes then j=1
r21  21   0.4243 r22  22   0.4924
x1 7.7011 x2 8.1240 j=2 if v32 ≥ v12 ≈ 0.0923 ≥ 0.0923 yes then j=2
x
r31  31 
5
 0.7071 x 5 j=3 if v33 ≥ v13 ≈ 0.0596 ≥ 0.1491 no
r32  32   0.6155
x1 7.7011 x2 8.12401 j=4 if v34 ≥ v14 ≈ 0.0970 ≥ 0.1455 no
So on the same way, it will get normalized r matrix : j=5 if v35 ≥ v15 ≈ 0.0333 ≥ 0.0667 no
c31 = {1,2}
0.5657 0.6155 0.7454 0.7276 0.6667
r  0.4243 0.4924 0.5963 0.4851 0.6667 i=2 c32
 
 0.7071 0.6155 0.2981 0.4851 0.3333 j=1 if v31 ≥ v21 ≈ 0.2475 ≥ 0.1485 yes then j=1
j=2 if v32 ≥ v22 ≈ 0.0923 ≥ 0.0739 yes then j=2
j=3 if v33 ≥ v23 ≈ 0.0596 ≥ 0.1193 no
Matrix V is calculated based on the equation (6) as follows:
j=4 if v34 ≥ v24 ≈ 0.0970 ≥ 0.0970 yes then j=4
v11 = w1r11 = (0.35) (0.5657) = 0.1980
j=5 if v35 ≥ v25 ≈ 0.0333 ≥ 0.0667 no
v12 = w2r12 = (0.15) (0.6155) = 0.0923
c32 = {1,2,4}
v13 = w3r13 = (0.2) (0.7454) = 0.1491
v14 = w4r14 = (0.2) (0.7276) = 0.1455
i=3 c33 = Identity j=1,2,3,4,5
v15 = w5r15 = (0.1) (0.6667) = 0.0667
Then for dkl value can synchronize with a value that is not
From the above results obtained matrix v as follows:
contained in ckl to set of dkl
d12={} d23={1,2}
0.1980 0.0923 0.1491 0.1455 0.0667
d13={1} d31={3,4,5}
v  0.1485 0.0739 0.1193 0.0970 0.0667
  d21={1,2,3,4} d32={3,5}
0.2475 0.0923 0.0596 0.0970 0.0333
Next calculate the set of concordance index: The member states set of dij columns on vij
Then the concordance matrix is formed. ckl element is
k=1 i=1 c11=identity j=1,2,3,4,5 calculated by equation (10)
i=2 c12
j=1 if v11 ≥ v21 ≈ 0.1980 ≥ 0.1485 yes then j=1 c12 = w1+w2+w3+w4+w5 = 0.35+0.15+0.2+0.2+0.1=1
j=2 if v12 ≥ v22 ≈ 0.0923 ≥ 0.0739 yes then j=2 c13 = w2+w3+w4+w5 = 0.15+0.2+0.2+0.1 = 0.65
j=3 if v13 ≥ v23 ≈ 0.1491 ≥ 0.1193 yes then j=3 c21 = w5 = 0.1
j=4 if v14 ≥ v24 ≈ 0.1455 ≥ 0.0970 yes then j=4 c23 = w3+w4+w5 = 0.2+0.2+0.1 = 0.5
j=5 if v15 ≥ v25 ≈ 0.0667 ≥ 0.0667 yes then j=5 c31=w1+w2 = 0.35+0.15 = 0.5
c12={1,2,3,4,5} c32 = w1+w2+w4 = 0.35+0.15+0.2 = 0.7
i=3 c13
j=1 if v11 ≥ v31 ≈ 0.1980 ≥ 0.2475 no The concordance matrix is:
j=2 if v12 ≥ v32 ≈ 0.0923 ≥ 0.0923 yes then j=2
j=3 if v13 ≥ v33 ≈ 0.1491 ≥ 0.0596 yes then j=3  1 0.65
j=4 if v14 ≥ v34 ≈ 0.1455 ≥ 0.0970 yes then j=4 C  0.1  0.50

j=5 if v15 ≥ v35 ≈ 0.0667 ≥ 0.0333 yes then j=5  
0.5 0.7  
c13={2,3,4,5}

IJERTV6IS020074 www.ijert.org 143


(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)
Published by : International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)
http://www.ijert.org ISSN: 2278-0181
Vol. 6 Issue 02, February-2017

At concordance model the elements of dkl are calculated  0 0   A1 



based on the equation (11) as follows: E   0  0   A2 
 0 1   A3 
max{ 0} 0
d12   0
max{ 0.0495;0.0185;0.0298;0.0485;0} 0.0495
With the ELECTRE methods of calculation indicated ekl=1
then the alternative is better than the A1. Alternative A3
better than A2, but not necessarily be able to draw
max{ 0.0495} 0.0495
d13    0.5534 connections between A1 to A2 and the A1 and A3.
max{ 0.0495;0;0.0894;0.0485;0.0333} 0.0894
IV. CONCLUSION
In this case using ELECTRE method to solve the problem of
max{ 0.0495;0.0185;0.0298;0.0485} 0.0495 selecting the best computer lecturer. The results of the study
d 21   1 are expected to be useful for decision makers in STMIK
max{ 0.0495;0.0185;0.0298;0.0485;0} 0.0495
Budi Darma, especially for policy makers. Selection of the
best computer lecturer believed to be able to motivate the
max{ 0.0495;0.0185} 0.0495
d23    0.5 lecturers at the university, so the faculty performance
max{ 0.0990;0.0185;0.0596;0;0.0333} 0.0990 becomes better. Application of this method by using data
max{ 0.0894;0.0485;0.0333} 0.0894 from a sample of cases contained in STMIK Budi Darma.
d31   1
max{ 0.0495;0;0.0894;0.0485;0.0333} 0.0894
V. REFERENCES

[1] T. &. B. B. J. Arh, "Application of Multi- Attribute Decision


max{ 0.0596;0;0.0333} 0.0596
d32   1 Making Approach to Learning Management Systems
max{ 0.0990;0.0185;0.0596;0;0.0333} 0.0596 Evaluation," JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS, vol. 2, no. 10,
pp. 28-37, 2007.
[2] R. J. &. H. K. H. Conejar, "A Medical Decision Support
System (DSS) for Ubiquitous Healthcare Diagnosis
concordance matrix is:
 0 0.5534 System," International Journal of Software Engineering and
D   1  0.5000 Its Applications, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 237-244, 2014.
 
 1 1   [3] E. A. J. &. L. T.-P. Turban, Decision Support System and
The value of c and d can be obtained by equation (13) and Intelligent System, US: Prentice-Hall, 2005.
(15) as follows: [4] R. &. R. Rahim, "Study of the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating
Technique For Decision Support," International Journal of
1  0.65  0.1  0.5  0.5  0.7 3.45 Scientific Research in Science and Technology, vol. 2, no. 6,
c   0.575 pp. 491-494, 2016.
 3(3  1) 6
[5] C. a. K. Y. Hwang, Multiple Attribute Decision Making:
Methods and Applications, New York: Springer-Verlag,
0  0.5534  1  0.5000  1  1 4.0534
d   0.6756 1981.
 3(3  1) 6
[6] K. &. H. C.-L. Yoon, "Multiple Attribute Decision Making:
An Introduction," Sage University Paper series on
Dominant concordance matrix is calculated based on the Quantative Applications in the Social Sciences, pp. 47-53,
equation (14) as follows: 1995.
[7] U. U. N. 14, Tentang Guru dan Dosen, Jakarta: Pemerintah
with  1 0.65 then  1 1  Republik Indonesia, 2005.

C  0.1  0.50  F  0  0
    [8] H. U. &. K. YAVUZ, "Selection of Logistics Centre
0.5 0.7    0 1  Location via ELECTRE Method: A Case Study in Turkey,"
International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 5,
no. 9, pp. 276-289, 2014.
Discordance dominant pattern calculated by equation (16) as
[9] A. M. M. &. M. M. Abdolazimi, "Comparing ELECTRE
follows:
and Linear Assignment Methods in Zoning Shahroud-
Bastam Watershed for Artificial Recharge of Groundwater
with  0 0.5534 then  0 0  with GIS Technique," Modern Applied Science, vol. 9, no.
D   1  0.5000
  G  1  0  1, pp. 68-82, 2015.
 
 1 1    1 1  [10] M. G. Y. &. A. Görener, "Decision Making for Company
Aggregation dominant matrix obtained from the Acquisition by ELECTRE Method," International Journal
of Supply Chain Management, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 75-83, 2016.
combination (long multiplication) between the f and g model
by equation (17) is Ekl=fkl x gkl as follows:

IJERTV6IS020074 www.ijert.org 144


(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

View publication stats